Breaking - Mueller Objected to Barr’s Description of Russia Investigation’s Findings

  
Via:  john-russell  •  3 months ago  •  262 comments

Breaking - Mueller Objected to Barr’s Description of Russia Investigation’s Findings

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T




April 30, 2019

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/30/us/politics/mueller-barr.html

WASHINGTON — Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, wrote a letter in late March to Attorney General William P. Barr objecting to his early description of the Russia investigation’s conclusions that appeared to clear President Trump on possible obstruction of justice, according to the Justice Department.





The letter adds to the growing evidence of a rift between them and is another sign of the anger among the special counsel’s investigators about Mr. Barr’s characterization of their findings, which allowed Mr. Trump to wrongly claim he had been vindicated.

It was unclear what specific objections Mr. Mueller raised in his letter. Mr. Barr defended his descriptions of the investigation’s conclusions in conversations with Mr. Mueller over the days after he sent the letter, according to two people with knowledge of their discussions.

Mr. Barr, who was scheduled to testify on Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the investigation, has said publicly that he disagrees with some of the legal reasoning in the Mueller report. Senior Democratic lawmakers have invited Mr. Mueller to testify in the coming weeks but have been unable to secure a date for his testimony.

===================

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/mueller-complained-that-barrs-letter-did-not-capture-context-of-trump-probe/2019/04/30/d3c8fdb6-6b7b-11e9-a66d-a82d3f3d96d5_story.html

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III wrote a letter in late March complaining to Attorney General William P. Barr that a four-page memo to Congress describing the principal conclusions of the investigation into President Trump “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of Mueller’s work, according to a copy of the letter reviewed Tuesday by The Washington Post.

At the time the letter was sent on March 27, Barr had announced that Mueller had not found a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian officials seeking to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. Barr also said Mueller had not reached a conclusion about whether Trump had tried to obstruct justice, but Barr reviewed the evidence and found it insufficient to support such a charge.

Days after Barr’s announcement , Mueller wrote a previously unknown private letter to the Justice Department, which revealed a degree of dissatisfaction with the public discussion of Mueller’s work that shocked senior Justice Department officials, according to people familiar with the discussions.

“The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions,” Mueller wrote. “There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
JohnRussell
1  seeder  JohnRussell    3 months ago

Barr should be impeached. 

Maybe one day Barr, then the next day Trump. 

-

The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions,” Mueller wrote.

-

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 months ago

Go down 11 paragraphs in the Post story and you find this:

"When Barr pressed Mueller on whether he thought Barr’s memo to Congress was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not but felt that the media coverage of it was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said."

When you see something in the middle of the story, which undercuts the title, you know your'e dealing with the same BS we've been listening to and reading for 3 years.

 
 
 
JBB
1.1.1  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1    3 months ago

I believe what Mueller says over what an unnamed source say he said...

Mueller says Barr "Grossly Mislead" Congress and the American People. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  JBB @1.1.1    3 months ago

How so?

Did Barr tell the truth when it appeared that spying was going on?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @1.1.1    3 months ago
over what an unnamed source

Interesting.  Unnamed sources have driven news stories for the past two years and this leak of the Mueller letter was so strategically timed. Barr testifies before the Senate today.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
1.1.4  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.3    3 months ago
Barr testifies before the Senate today.

they are using this hearing to prep the public for future indictments... LOL

listen to the opening statements.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.5  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @1.1.4    3 months ago

Nicole Wallace has basically accused William Barr of perjury in front of the committee today. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.5    3 months ago

Nicole Wallace? 

You mean a partisan shill offered an extreme take not tethered to reality?  Amazing..

I bet alternet agrees!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.1.7  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.6    3 months ago

You're calling Nicole Wallace a partisan shill? You do know she's a republican, don't you?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.7    3 months ago

You do know she's a republican, don't you?

That's like calling Reagan a Democrat in 1980.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.1.9  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.8    3 months ago

you're whacked

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
1.1.10  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.5    3 months ago
Nicole Wallace

nobody cares what nicole wallace says.

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.1.11  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.3    3 months ago
Interesting.  Unnamed sources have driven news stories for the past two years

Deep Throat wasn't an unnamed source 47 years ago?

Unnamed sources aren't new to this or any other Administration.

Bush forced Dan rather into retirement. 

Obama decried unnamed sources for 8 years.

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.1.12  Split Personality  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.6    3 months ago
Nicole Wallace?  You mean a partisan shill offered an extreme take not tethered to reality

Yes, the same Fox News reporter who used to question everything Obama.

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.1.13  Split Personality  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @1.1.10    3 months ago

One could guess that her feelings about anyone here would be mutual.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.14  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.11    3 months ago
Unnamed sources aren't new to this or any other Administration.

Nor were they as numerous or totally against one individual as they were in the past two years.


Obama decried unnamed sources for 8 years.

Obama did a lot more than that:

"In 2009, for example, the Obama White House intentionally excluded Fox News’ Chris Wallace from participating in a round of interviews pertaining to the president’s push for healthcare reform. Later that same year, the administration officials tried to block Fox reporters from interviewing “pay czar” Kenneth Feinberg. The White House initially lied about this, and many in the press went along with it. It wasn’t until 2011 that the public learned the truth of the Feinberg episode. An internal email dated Oct. 22, 2009, showed the White House director of broadcast media told Treasury officials specifically, “We’d prefer if you skip Fox please.”

In 2010, the Obama administration renewed the bogus Bush-era subpoena against the New York Times' James Risen in a prolonged attempt to determine whether the reporter was the recipient of leaked CIA information. In February 2011, federal investigators were revealed to have spied on Risen. Federal investigators pored over Risen's credit reports and his personal bank records. The feds even tracked his phone logs and movements.

Later, in 2012, Fox was mysteriously excluded from a White House conference call pertaining to the terrorist attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Fox was also excluded from an all-network CIA briefing regarding the attacks.

In 2013, the Obama Justice Department labeled then-Fox News reporter James Rosen a “criminal co-conspirator” under the Espionage Act of 1917. And all because the reporter used a State Department contractor as a source for a story. Rosen was also labeled a "flight risk."

The Justice Department seized the records of at least five phone lines connected to Fox News. The federal law enforcement agency even seized the phone records of Rosen’s parents. The FBI also got a warrant to search Rosen's emails from 2010.

In May 2013, the Associated Press revealed that the Justice Department had secretly collected two months' worth of personal and work-related phone calls made by AP reporters and editors.

Federal officials secretly obtained records on incoming and outgoing calls made by specific AP journalists, as well as general news staff, the news group reported, potentially compromising many sources totally unrelated to the investigation. Federal investigators even collected data on calls made by AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery.

In 2014, the Obama administration set the record for denying the most Freedom of Information Act requests of any administration. It topped this feat in 2015.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/obama-whose-administration-prosecuted-and-spied-on-reporters-claims-trump-is-very-bad-for-criticizing-newsrooms



Please note the weaponizing of the DOJ and FBI!




"A former American Civil Liberties Union president suggested former President Barack Obama was a “terrible president” when it came to free speech issues, during a Friday interview.

Former ACLU president and author Nadine Strossen made the remark during a phone interview with The Daily Caller News Foundation about the ACLU’s efforts with regard to free speech on college campuses going back to the 1990s."

https://dailycaller.com/2018/05/28/former-aclu-president-calls-obama-terrible-on-free-speech/



So, now you are trying to make the case that all the deep state anti-Trump leaking was relative?

I think we can conclude that you failed.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.15  Vic Eldred  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.7    3 months ago
You're calling Nicole Wallace a partisan shill? You do know she's a republican, don't you?

Wasn't she the Republican who advised the McCain campaign that Sarah Palin was prepared to actually do an interview with Katie Couric?  If McCain had a chance to win that election (which is very doubtful), Wallace ended it right there. When I first saw her on MSNBC, I said to myself "there's the real Nicloe Wallace!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.16  Vic Eldred  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @1.1.4    3 months ago

Very political

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.17  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.16    3 months ago

Barr is lying right this minute. 

 
 
 
tomwcraig
1.1.18  tomwcraig  replied to  JBB @1.1.1    3 months ago

The letter doesn't say Barr's conclusions were wrong or misleading, only that that he did not provide the proper context.  That's like you complaining to me about saying the sky is blue, when you originally stated that the sky is light blue due to the angle of the sun.  It's not a lie, but it is lacking the full context of what you said.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.19  Tessylo  replied to  tomwcraig @1.1.18    3 months ago
the proper context.

Is key

 
 
 
tomwcraig
1.1.20  tomwcraig  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.19    3 months ago

Not really, when the conclusions are correct despite the context and which Mueller doesn't contradict.

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.1.21  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.14    3 months ago
So, now you are trying to make the case that all the deep state anti-Trump leaking was relative? I think we can conclude that you failed.

Failed at what?

Conspiracy Theory 101?

Or

Partisan Victimhood 101?

Deep State anti Trump leaking, LMAO

Have you seen this Fox News video about Obama?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-cZG81-MPQ

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.22  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  tomwcraig @1.1.18    3 months ago

William Barr got totally exposed today. He needs to resign or be impeached. 

He either lied or had big memory lapses. Both actually. It is one thing for Donald Trump Jr to have those problems, it is another for the nations symbol of legal justice to do so. 

Barr was asked if the president or anyone in the White House had asked him to open investigations on individuals (implied as trump opponents) and Barr said he could not remember. 

Barr also was forced to admit that he did not review the evidence before he cleared Trump of obstruction of justice. 

We can't tolerate a disgraced individual in the office of Attorney General. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.23  gooseisgone  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.19    3 months ago
the proper context.
Is key

Please explain in detail "WHAT" was not in proper context.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.24  Tessylo  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.23    3 months ago

“The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions,” Mr. Mueller wrote in a letter addressed to Mr. Barr, whose characterizations of Mr. Mueller’s investigation have also come under fire by members of the special counsel’s team.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.25  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.24    3 months ago

Summaries often do not capture the FULL context, nature and substance of a report--especially when the report is so long and the summary is so short.

No big deal anyways--Congress HAS the full Mueller Report.

Where are the articles of impeachment?

What is taking Democrats so long?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.26  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.17    3 months ago

John, that such a heavily detailed & resourced response./Sar

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.1.27  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1    3 months ago
"When Barr pressed Mueller on whether he thought Barr’s memo to Congress was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not but felt that the media coverage of it was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said."

Actually, that is what Barr said that Mueller said and, until I actually hear it out of Mueller's mouth, I will take whatever Barr says with a very large grain of salt.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.1.28  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.2    3 months ago
Did Barr tell the truth when it appeared that spying was going on?

No, he did not, it is evident that you like many others don't know the difference between spying and, surveillance. 

 
 
 
katrix
1.1.29  katrix  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.1.28    3 months ago
No, he did not, it is evident that you like many others don't know the difference between spying and, surveillance. 

To him, the difference is:  if it's done to a Republican, it's spying. If it's done to a Democrat, it's surveillance.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.1.30  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.3    3 months ago

1-0925d8f2b2.jpg

2-96902f7b7a.jpg

Show us in Muellers letter where that claim was made.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.1.31  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  katrix @1.1.29    3 months ago
To him, the difference is:  if it's done to a Republican, it's spying. If it's done to a Democrat, it's surveillance.

And, he seems to forget from his days at the CIA that spying is what is done in other country's, surveillance is was is done by law enforcement in this country after Law Enforcement receives a warrant to do so.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.32  It Is ME  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.1.28    3 months ago
No, he did not, it is evident that you like many others don't know the difference between spying and, surveillance.

It's ALWAYS called "Surveillance" when it's done to the "Public". It's Definitely called "Spying" when it's done to a political Opponent running for office. 

"Politics" really isn't hard to follow dontchyaknow.

 
 
 
lib50
1.1.33  lib50  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.32    3 months ago

Trump was NOT spied on.   Trump is not exonerated.  Barr is not being truthful and forthcoming.  This continuous lie about how team Trump got caught up in surveillance because of their meetings and communication with Russians (and lies about said communications), who were being monitored because of their hacking and meddling in US elections.  Trump is LYING (again) about this whole thing, and his lapdogs are lying for and with him.  You don't go to this much trouble to repress, misrepresent and obfuscate if you have nothing to hide. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.34  It Is ME  replied to  lib50 @1.1.33    3 months ago
Trump was NOT spied on

Weird....how all this so-called Damning Info on Trump came about....like it was out of "Thin Air" ?

 
 
 
tomwcraig
1.1.35  tomwcraig  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.1.28    3 months ago

Actually, there is very little difference between them.  That difference is whether there was probable cause.  Eliminate the Steele dossier and the reports that were used in the FISA application process, and you eliminate the probable cause for the surveillance on Trump campaign staff and transition team members.  At that point, it changes from surveillance to spying.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.36  gooseisgone  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.24    3 months ago
did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions,” Mr. Mueller

Yeah so...........it was a summary of his interpretation the material, he released the entire document so Mueller's and Barr's summaries are moot, don't you understand that. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.37  Dulay  replied to  tomwcraig @1.1.35    3 months ago
Actually, there is very little difference between them.  That difference is whether there was probable cause.  Eliminate the Steele dossier and the reports that were used in the FISA application process, and you eliminate the probable cause for the surveillance on Trump campaign staff and transition team members.  At that point, it changes from surveillance to spying.

Really tom?

As far as I know, only ONE FISA warrant was issued on anyone remotely connected to the Trump Campaign. Page was already ousted from Trump's staff BEFORE the FISA warrant was issued. Trump said so himself at the time. 

So unless you can name someone else that was 'spied' on, there was NO surveillance OR spying on the Trump campaign staff OR transition team. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.38  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.36    3 months ago
Yeah so...........it was a summary of his interpretation the material, he released the entire document so Mueller's and Barr's summaries are moot, don't you understand that. 

Since Barr do NOT release the entire document, your comment is moot. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.39  gooseisgone  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.1.31    3 months ago
his days at the CIA that spying is what is done in other country's, surveillance is was is done by law enforcement in this country

NO............you didn't just say that did you!

Definition of surveillance

close watch kept over someone or something

Definition of spy

one who keeps secret watch on a person or thing to obtain information

Actually spying is the correct term.

 
 
 
lib50
1.1.40  lib50  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.39    3 months ago

Page wasn't being 'spied' on until he got with Russians who were automatically being surveilled.  Barr and republicans are currently using the word spy as pejorative.  Whatever.  Doesn't change the fact it was all done because of team Trumps continued contacts with RUSSIANS WHILE THEY CONTINUE TO LIE ABOUT IT.  Deal with THAT. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.41  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.39    3 months ago
Actually spying is the correct term.

So should we change the title of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to the Foreign Intelligence Spying Act? 

 
 
 
tomwcraig
1.1.42  tomwcraig  replied to  Dulay @1.1.37    3 months ago

So, there was no unmasking of Trump campaign and transition staff by Susan Rice?  Remember, for someone to be unmasked, they have to have been recorded by the intelligence or law enforcement communities, which equates to spying as well.  And as for the FISA warrant(s), each renewal is actually a new FISA warrant since it has to be signed off on by multiple people.  One of those renewals was signed off on by Rod Rosenstein.  Carter Page has the only publicized FISA warrant, how many more do we not know about?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.43  Dulay  replied to  tomwcraig @1.1.42    3 months ago
So, there was no unmasking of Trump campaign and transition staff by Susan Rice? 

WOW! That is one hell of a deflection from the FISA warrant and the Steele Dossier tom. I presume that means that you're bailing on that BS claim. 

Remember, for someone to be unmasked, they have to have been recorded by the intelligence or law enforcement communities, which equates to spying as well. 

For someone to be unmasked, they would have to be someone OTHER than the subject of the surveillance. DUH!

And as for the FISA warrant(s), each renewal is actually a new FISA warrant since it has to be signed off on by multiple people.  One of those renewals was signed off on by Rod Rosenstein. 

And? WTF does that have to do with the FACT that Page was NOT part of the Trump campaign while the FISA warrant was active? Hint: Not a fucking thing. 

Carter Page has the only publicized FISA warrant, how many more do we not know about?

Again, deflection. Try to focus and address the topic at hand. 

HOW does the Page FISA warrant give any veracity to the BS about Trump's campaign being spied on?

Hell, I'm not even asking you to connect the dots, just cite some logical dots to follow. 

Oh and BTFW, IF a FISA warrant existed for anyone who was actually in the Trump campaign it would have been cited in the Mueller report. If there WERE any mention of it, there would have been a media uproar. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.44  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.1.38    3 months ago
Since Barr do NOT release the entire document, your comment is moot.

HaHaHa…..Dulay you didn't take the 5 seconds to read the first sentence of Mueller's letter did you, his summary was ALSO on the redacted version of the report.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.45  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.1.41    3 months ago
So should we change the title of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to the Foreign Intelligence Spying Act

Yes, why does that trigger you in some way.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.46  gooseisgone  replied to  lib50 @1.1.40    3 months ago
Page wasn't being 'spied' on until he got with Russians who were automatically being surveilled

Provide the source.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.47  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.44    3 months ago
HaHaHa…..Dulay you didn't take the 5 seconds to read the first sentence of Mueller's letter did you, his summary was ALSO on the redacted version of the report.

I have no idea WTF you're laughing about. I replied to YOUR statement, not Mueller's. 

YOU stated that Barr released the 'entire document'. That is FALSE. 

Since you now admit that there is a 'redacted version of the report' and THAT version is the ONLY one that has been released, one would presume you'd recognize that without being told. Why you're arguing the point is beyond me. 

But hey goose, laugh it up...

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.48  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.45    3 months ago
Yes,

So do we need to pass another statute to codify surveillance or just STOP all Foreign Surveillance? 

why does that trigger you in some way.

What makes you think it does? 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.49  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.1.47    3 months ago
YOU stated that Barr released the 'entire document'. That is FALSE

You do realize the term document and Full Report don't mean the same thing, I never used the term Report. This entire seed is about Mueller being unhappy with Barr's evaluation of his work. Mueller went to great lengths not to violate the "Protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure".  Mueller is not demanding the "FULL REPORT" be released because he knows its against the law without a court order so your premise is just plain silly. 

 
 
 
lib50
1.1.50  lib50  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.46    3 months ago

https://www.businessinsider.com/carter-page-nunes-memo-2018-2#washington-and-other-western-powers-have-impeded-potential-progress-through-their-often-hypocritical-focus-on-ideas-such-as-democratization-inequality-corruption-and-regime-change-page-said-during-a-speech-in-moscow-in-front-of-prominent-russian-government-officials-9

Over the years, Page's dealings in Russia caught the attention of US government officials, who suspected that he may be working as an agent of Moscow. Intelligence officials knew of him as far back as 2013, well before he joined the Trump campaign.

..........................................read more in article before this part................

Over 400 pages of documents released on Saturday show the FBI's applications to surveil Page, and Department of Justice officials plus judges signing off on those requests. The FBI said it had reason to believe Page was "an agent of a foreign power" and "the subject of targeted recruitment by the Russian government."

Here is a page of the fisa warrant:

5b55cd754f00953c008b458d-960-842.jpg
 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.51  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.49    3 months ago
You do realize the term document and Full Report don't mean the same thing, I never used the term Report.

Actually, you just did and have in other comments. You do realize that that members can READ your prior comments AND those that I have block quoted right? 

This entire seed is about Mueller being unhappy with Barr's evaluation of his work. 

You're deflecting. 

Mueller went to great lengths not to violate the "Protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure".

Point? 

Mueller is not demanding the "FULL REPORT" 

You are the one that claimed that the 'entire document' was released, not I. 

be released because he knows its against the law without a court order so your premise is just plain silly.

Really goose? Cite the law. I'll wait...

Judging from your comments, you have no fucking clue what my premise is. 

 
 
 
tomwcraig
1.1.52  tomwcraig  replied to  Dulay @1.1.43    3 months ago

The unmasking is actually part of the spying on the Trump campaign, if you use logic.  How can people being caught in incidental surveillance being identified to the Presidential Administration conducting that surveillance be anything but spying?  The FISA warrant was issued for Page but because of it, we had several Trump campaign members being spied on as well.  And, since Page came forward on his own to the FBI to turn in the "Russians" he had contact with, and that he was never charged with anything, how can the renewals be anything but spying.  Those are all the dots, since all of these were part of the Russian collusion accusations.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.53  gooseisgone  replied to  lib50 @1.1.50    3 months ago
The FBI said it had reason to believe Page was "an agent of a foreign power"

Where is the indictment of Page????????

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.54  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.1.51    3 months ago
Actually, you just did and have in other comments

When you're in a hole stop digging I have said nothing about the "Full Report", stop blaming me for your dumb comments.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.55  Dulay  replied to  tomwcraig @1.1.52    3 months ago
The unmasking is actually part of the spying on the Trump campaign, if you use logic.  How can people being caught in incidental surveillance being identified to the Presidential Administration conducting that surveillance be anything but spying? 

What part of not being the subject of the surveillance don't you understand? 

BTFW tom, you seem to think that somehow Rice was prescient and KNEW that the person that would be unmasked was part of the Trump campaign. Please explain how you came to that ridiculous conclusion. 

The FISA warrant was issued for Page but because of it, we had several Trump campaign members being spied on as well. 

Really? Who? Please be specific and cite your sources. 

And, since Page came forward on his own to the FBI to turn in the "Russians" he had contact with, and that he was never charged with anything, how can the renewals be anything but spying. 

Page came forward to the FBI? When? There is no mention of him coming forward in the Mueller report. 

You're mistaken in your idea that FISA warrants inherently lead to prosecution. 

AGAIN, the FISA warrant for Page was authorized AFTER he was no longer a part of the campaign so you STILL can't support your claim that the campaign was 'spied' on. 

Those are all the dots, since all of these were part of the Russian collusion accusations.

Really tom, you're just posting unfounded BS.

Connecting your dots gives me this picture:

0

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.56  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.54    3 months ago
When you're in a hole stop digging I have said nothing about the "Full Report", stop blaming me for your dumb comments.

When you set a goal post, don't move it. 

My reply was to your statement: 

I never used the term Report.

You HAD indeed used that term:

HaHaHa…..Dulay you didn't take the 5 seconds to read the first sentence of Mueller's letter did you, his summary was ALSO on the redacted version of the report.

Your statement:

Yeah so...........it was a summary of his interpretation the material, he released the entire document so Mueller's and Barr's summaries are moot, don't you understand that.

You claim that when you said 'entire document' you didn't mean the 'full report'. So WTF DID you mean goose? Exactly WHAT document were you referring to when you used the term 'entire document'? 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.57  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.1.56    3 months ago
You claim that when you said 'entire document' you didn't mean the 'full report'. So WTF DID you mean goose? Exactly WHAT document were you referring to when you used the term 'entire document'? 

This entire seed is about the fucking "summary" of the "REDACTED VERSION OF THE REPORT". Barr wrote a summary, Mueller didn't like it so he sent them a letter bitching about it, none of it had to do with the "full report", if you took the time to read Mueller's letter you would know that. Mueller's team is assisting in creating the document which is a redacted version of the "full report",  if you read Mueller's letter you would know that also.  Barr released the "Entire Document" which is also the "Redacted Report" so bitching about the summary is moot which is what started this whole thing.   

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.58  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.57    3 months ago

You didn't answer my question goose. Here, I'll repeat it: 

Exactly WHAT document were you referring to when you used the term 'entire document'? 

Barr's summary was written before the redactions were done so please don't give me anymore bullshit claiming it's about Barr's summary.

No thinking person would accept the characterize of the release of a REDACTED document as the release of the 'entire document'. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.59  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.1.58    2 months ago
You didn't answer my question goose. Here, I'll repeat it:

answer: "REDACTED VERSION OF THE REPORT"

Barr's summary was written before the redactions were done so please don't give me anymore bullshit claiming it's about Barr's summary.

Barr's summary claiming its about Barr's summary WTF does that even mean? So.....he read the report, he knew what the conclusions were, he didn't need the redactions to be complete before he wrote a summary.

No thinking person would accept the characterize

Well I hate to call you a "No thinking person" but Mueller's summary was on the redacted report, that he helped to redact so to make it about the Full Report makes no sense. Mueller knows the full report can't be released without a court order.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.1.60  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  tomwcraig @1.1.35    2 months ago
Actually, there is very little difference between them.  That difference is whether there was probable cause.  Eliminate the Steele dossier and the reports that were used in the FISA application process, and you eliminate the probable cause for the surveillance on Trump campaign staff and transition team members.  At that point, it changes from surveillance to spying.

But, you forget, the surveillance that was being done to the Russian Ambassador and, several other Russians at the time that linked to Carter Page and, involved a few conversations with Trump campaign folks, if it wasn't for that little tidbit then you might have a case for the FBI having over stepped but, Page worked for the campaign while he was under surveillance by the FBI because he had, had contact with Russians who were known spy's, the FBI would have derelict in their duty had they not checked out all the contacts by the Trump campaign and, known Russian agents.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.1.61  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.39    2 months ago

Actually, no it isn't, surveillance is done only after a court order has been approved for the surveillance, spying is done without a court order and, is usually done to folks who are not a part of our country, since it is illegal to spy on U.S. Citizens without a court order and, then the correct term is surveillance.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.1.62  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  tomwcraig @1.1.35    2 months ago
Eliminate the Steele dossier and the reports that were used in the FISA application process, and you eliminate the probable cause for the surveillance on Trump campaign staff and transition team members.  At that point, it changes from surveillance to spying.

Are you saying that it is alright for a campaign to get information from a foreign government? That because Trump and, his campaign got Russia to work to get Trump elected it's alright for a campaign and, someone running for office to get information and, help from a foreign country or, maybe even a terrorist organization? That any information like what was found by Mueller concerning the Russian interference in our election in 2016 should just be over looked by law enforcement and, our government? Well, at least we know where your loyalty's are at COMRADE.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.63  gooseisgone  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.1.61    2 months ago

Stop making stuff up. Court orders have nothing to do with the term used to describe the activity.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.64  gooseisgone  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.1.62    2 months ago
Are you saying that it is alright for a campaign to get information from a foreign government?

What in the hell do you think Hillary Clinton did?

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.1.65  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.64    2 months ago
What in the hell do you think Hillary Clinton did?

She got information from the same firm that Marco Rubio and, the Washington Free Beacon hired, Fusion GPS, it so happens that Fusion GPS hired an independent contractor who use to work for MI6 named Christopher Steele to get the information for them.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.1.66  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.63    2 months ago
Stop making stuff up. Court orders have nothing to do with the term used to describe the activity.

If you spy on someone you don't have to get a court order to do it, that is what makes the CIA, NSA and, the rest of the "spy" alphabet soup so important. The FBI had to get a FISA warrant to investigate Page, it so happened that Page went to work for the Trump Campaign so, what information they learned was because of that investigation, at least that is how it all started.

What did you expect the FBI to do, say, "Oh, he's going to work for the Trump Campaign, let's shut everything down?" Bwahahahahahahahaha.

 
 
 
tomwcraig
1.1.67  tomwcraig  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.1.66    2 months ago

And, here you promote a violation of the Bill of Rights, particularly the 4th Amendment.  A warrant is necessary to search a person or their property.  Spying is searching and recording a person without their knowledge and consent and without a warrant.  It is ILLEGAL to do so inside the USA, since the citizens of the USA are covered under the Constitution and its Amendments.  

What happened with Page was an illegally obtained warrant as they did not establish probably cause without the use of the dossier which has been debunked by the FBI, itself!  They knowingly used what they have since admitted they knew to be false to obtain a FISA warrant against Page.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.68  Dulay  replied to  tomwcraig @1.1.67    2 months ago
What happened with Page was an illegally obtained warrant as they did not establish probably cause without the use of the dossier which has been debunked by the FBI, itself! 

You know this HOW tom? The FISA warrant is so redacted that I know you didn't get it from there.

So post a link to where the FBI debunked the parts of the dossier used in the FISA warrant and that they did so prior to the FISA warrant application in Oct. 2016.

I won't be holding my breath for your link.  

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.1.69  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  tomwcraig @1.1.67    2 months ago
And, here you promote a violation of the Bill of Rights, particularly the 4th Amendment.

I have done no such thing, show me where I said it was alright to spy on Americans.

  A warrant is necessary to search a person or their property.

Which is why the FBI obtained a FISA warrant for Page.

  Spying is searching and recording a person without their knowledge and consent and without a warrant.

Yes, which is what is done by the CIA, who, according to the law can't operate within the United States and, can't spy on American Citizens....without a FISA warrant. Show us please where the CIA operated in the United States and, did so without first getting a FISA warrant.

  It is ILLEGAL to do so inside the USA, since the citizens of the USA are covered under the Constitution and its Amendments.  

Tell it to your Congressman.

The USA PATRIOT Act (commonly known as the "Patriot Act") is an Act of the U.S. Congress that was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. The title of the Act is a contrived three letter initialism (USA) preceding a seven letter acronym (PATRIOT), which in combination stand for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.[2] The acronym was created by a 23 year old Congressional staffer, Chris Kyle.

In response to the September 11 attacks and the 2001 anthrax attacks, Congress swiftly passed legislation to strengthen national security. On October 23, 2001, Republican Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner introduced H.R. 3162 incorporating provisions from a previously-sponsored House bill and a Senate bill also introduced earlier in the month.[3] The next day, the Act passed the House by a vote of 357–66,[4] with Democrats comprising the overwhelming portion of dissent. The three Republicans voting "no" were Robert Ney of Ohio, Butch Otter of Idaho, and Ron Paul of Texas. On October 25, the Act passed the Senate by a 98–1 vote, the only dissident being Russ Feingold of Wisconsin.[5]

Those opposing the law have criticized its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; the permission given to law enforcement to search a home or business without the owner's or the occupant's consent or knowledge; the expanded use of National Security Letters, which allows the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records. Since its passage, several legal challenges have been brought against the act, and federal courts have ruled that a number of provisions are unconstitutional.

Many of the act's provisions were to sunset beginning December 31, 2005, approximately four years after its passage. In the months preceding the sunset date, supporters of the act pushed to make its sun-setting provisions permanent, while critics sought to revise various sections to enhance civil liberty protections. In July 2005, the U.S. Senate passed a reauthorization bill with substantial changes to several of the act's sections, while the House reauthorization bill kept most of the act's original language. The two bills were then reconciled in a conference committee criticized by Senators from both the Republican and Democratic parties for ignoring civil liberty concerns.[6]

The bill, which removed most of the changes from the Senate version, passed Congress on March 2, 2006, and was signed by President Bush on March 9 and 10 of that year.

On May 26, 2011, President Barack Obama signed the PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011, a four-year extension of three key provisions in the Act:[7] roving wiretaps, searches of business records, and conducting surveillance of "lone wolves"—individuals suspected of terrorist-related activities not linked to terrorist groups.[8]

Following a lack of Congressional approval, parts of the Patriot Act expired on June 1, 2015.[9] With passing the USA Freedom Act on June 2, 2015, the expired parts were restored and renewed through 2019.[10]However, Section 215 of the law was amended to stop the National Security Agency (NSA) from continuing its mass phone data collection program.[10] Instead, phone companies will retain the data and the NSA can obtain information about targeted individuals with permission from a federal court.[10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act

What happened with Page was an illegally obtained warrant as they did not establish probably cause without the use of the dossier which has been debunked by the FBI, itself!  They knowingly used what they have since admitted they knew to be false to obtain a FISA warrant against Page.

No, they had plenty to use before they used the dossier, unless of course you wish to discount all the information that lead up to the FIRST FISA warrant against Page, yes, there were two, one was issued before Page went to work for the Trump Campaign the other was issued when it came to light that Page was working for the Campaign

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/95-carter-page-fisa-documents-foia-release/full/optimized.pdf

 
 
 
tomwcraig
1.1.70  tomwcraig  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.1.69    2 months ago
If you spy on someone you don't have to get a court order to do it

Right there in your opening words of your comment at 1.1.66.  In order for the spying on any American citizen, it has to have a warrant where the people conducting the spying have shown probable cause.

As for the FISA warrants, they were denied until the dossier was revealed and Steele's planted Yahoo! story by Isikoff was written and published.

 
 
 
tomwcraig
1.1.71  tomwcraig  replied to  Dulay @1.1.68    2 months ago

So, you don't pay attention to what is going on out there do you?  We have Brennan, Comey, and Clapper all pointing fingers at each other over the dossier and its false contents and each all admitting now it was false.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.72  Dulay  replied to  tomwcraig @1.1.71    2 months ago
So, you don't pay attention to what is going on out there do you?  We have Brennan, Comey, and Clapper all pointing fingers at each other over the dossier and its false contents and each all admitting now it was false.

Great! Then you shouldn't have any problem posting a link to videos or written interview of them all doing so. Please proceed. 

BTFW. Brennan and Clapper weren't in the FBI. 

And you claim that I don't pay attention...

jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

Oh, BTW, I STILL won't be holding my breath for your links...

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.73  Dulay  replied to  tomwcraig @1.1.70    2 months ago
As for the FISA warrants, they were denied until the dossier was revealed

Oh please DO post a link that evidences that a FISA warrant for Page was denied. 

I can't wait to see this...

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.1.74  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  tomwcraig @1.1.70    2 months ago
As for the FISA warrants, they were denied until the dossier was revealed and Steele's planted Yahoo! story by Isikoff was written and published.

Once again you have been mislead by the Rightwing media and, Donald J. Trump,

In August 2013, Page wrote, "Over the past half year, I have had the privilege to serve as an informal advisor to the staff of the Kremlin in preparation for their Presidency of the G-20 Summit next month, where energy issues will be a prominent point on the agenda."[23]Page described his role differently in 2018: "I sat in on some meetings, but to call me an advisor is way over the top."[24]Also in 2013,Russian intelligence operativesattempted to recruit Page, and one of them, Victor Podobnyy, described Page as enthusiastic about business opportunities in Russia but an "idiot".[2][21]"I also promised him a lot," Podobnyy reported to a fellow Russian intelligence officer at the time, according to an FBI transcript of their conversation, which was covertly recorded. "How else to work with foreigners?"[21][25][26]News accounts in 2017 indicated that because of these ties to Russia, Page had been the subject of a warrant pursuant to theForeign Intelligence Surveillance Act(FISA) in 2014, at least two years earlier than was indicated in the stories concerning his role in the2016 presidential campaignofDonald Trump.[27][28]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Page

The Steele Dossier didn't come into play until 2016, notice that the FISA warrant for Page was issued in 2014, a year before Trump announced he was running for president. Anyone who was found to be in contact would have been INVESTIGATED by the FBI as a matter of course, to see if there was any connection to them and, Page's contacts with the Russians. Now, it isn't beyond the scope of U.S. intelligence to spy on a foreign national in this country and, as the paragraph indicates that is what was being done when Page came into the sights of the intelligence community, that is why they sought a FISA warrant for Page and, why it was extended to include certain members of the Trump campaign.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.75  Dulay  replied to  tomwcraig @1.1.71    2 months ago

Where'd you go tom? You made some comments that need supporting if you want to be viewed as credible. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 months ago

Barr is giving a pathetic performance today. He should be impeached. 

He clearly sees his role as the nation's chief symbol of legal justice as a mandate to defend our unethical , immoral and crooked president*

 
 
 
Ender
1.2.1  Ender  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2    3 months ago

Watching him, he is a lying sack of shit. He doesn't recall, etc.

Several of the republicans are pathetic. Basically parroting trump and saying that they are trying to unseat an elected official. All the while ignoring what was actually in the report.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.2.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2    3 months ago

Did you notice when Barr started to say what he thought the Presidents lawyers would have objected to and what their defense of his actions to obstruct would have been if he were charged? He stumbled a bit at first as he almost let it slip that he is effectively acting as the Presidents defense council by presenting a defense for the Presidents actions detailed in the Mueller report. This is an egregious breach of ethics as the Attorney General is supposed to be an impartial arbiter of the law, not a lap dog defense attorney shielding the President from oversight.

This is far more than an AG just giving the President the benefit of the doubt on each of these 10 clear cases of obstruction. This is a partisan AG actively involved in covering up the clearly unethical and possibly criminal behavior of a monumentally unfit President out of party loyalty and a desire to keep the republican party from being exposed and embarrassed.

 
 
 
Ender
1.2.3  Ender  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.2.2    3 months ago

This is his second time doing this as well.

 
 
 
Ender
1.2.4  Ender  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.2.2    3 months ago

I just noticed that nutty Cruz asked Barr about the FISA warrants, and Barr said he didn't know.

How does the acting AG not know these things?

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.2.5  KDMichigan  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2    3 months ago

would you say he is his wingman?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.2.6  Greg Jones  replied to  Ender @1.2.1    3 months ago
Watching him, he is a lying sack of shit. He doesn't recall, etc

Hmm.....reminds one of HRC's faulty memory episodes.

 
 
 
Ender
1.2.7  Ender  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2.6    3 months ago

Squirrel....

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.8  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2.6    3 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.10  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.9    2 months ago

That was during a voluntary 3.5 hour FBI interview for which Clinton didn't know ANY of the questions. Many of those questions were about events that had happened 6 or more years prior. 

Conversely, Trump stated 'I do not recall' 36 times and refused to answer many of the questions Mueller asked him in writing. ALL of the questions were about events from 2015 on...less than 3 years from when he answered the questions. He and his lawyers also had all the time in the world to 'refresh' his recollection, unlike Clinton. 

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.3  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 months ago
Barr should be impeached.

I think that one might be coming soon.

 
 
 
bbl-1
2  bbl-1    3 months ago

Everything under 'the heel' of the Trump has one purpose and one purpose only.  Deflection and protection. 

Is the Trump a political heroin?

 
 
 
JBB
3  JBB    3 months ago

The Mueller Report is a stinging indictment of Trump despite Barr's lying spin...

 
 
 
Tacos!
4  Tacos!    3 months ago

This is a lot to swallow with virtually no evidence.

objecting to his early description of the Russia investigation’s conclusions that appeared to clear President Trump on possible obstruction of justice

That's kind of hard to believe. Mueller had every opportunity to declare that he believed Trump had obstructed justice and he chose not to do that. He left the decision to the AG. That was his choice. Now, we're supposed to believe that he objects to the AG's decision?? It doesn't make sense.

according to a copy of the letter reviewed Tuesday by The Washington Post

It's curious that the WP chose not to actually publish the alleged letter. If it's real, what's stopping them?

according to two people with knowledge of their discussions

Unnamed sources again with only the vaguest description of why we should believe them. Seems like more reason to doubt the veracity of this story.

 
 
 
JBB
4.1  JBB  replied to  Tacos! @4    3 months ago

The Mueller Report catalogues 77 times when Trump & Co committed crimes.

 
 
 
Ronin2
4.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  JBB @4.1    3 months ago

Hard to commit a crime against an illegal investigation.

Mueller and his paid hit squad of Hillary and Obama sycophants were an investigation in search of a crime. They found a lot of them, and prosecuted several people involved with the Trump administration and campaign; but not one of them were for collusion with Russia during the elections.  Kind of hard to swalllow for the left isn't it?

The FISA warrants were illegal to start with, and are being investigated now. Carter Page, the main reason behind the FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign (and everyone around them)  has never been questioned or charge with any crime.  Why not?  He should have been the very first person brought in for questioning and brought up on charges. Page was used to extend the FISA warrants as well.  What damning evidence did the FBI use to get them extended?  Did the judge even read it?  Why is Page still walking free uncharged?

Next is the Obama state department outing Trump campaign officials.  That needs to be fully investigated as well. There was no reason for it other than influence the elections; and lay the ground work for future investigations should Hillary lose.

Funny how the left can overlook Obama's obstruction of any and all investigations; but are hell bent on charging Trump for obstructing an illegal investigation based on lies.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.1.3  Greg Jones  replied to  JBB @4.1    3 months ago

Wait until Barr starts to investigate all the events leading up to the Mueller investigation...spying on citizens, fake FISA warrants, etc. Then you will learn what a real crime is.

In the meantime, Trump and associates did not collude or obstruct justice.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
4.1.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1.3    3 months ago
Trump and associates did not collude or obstruct justice.

Trump probably didn't collude, but I think he obstructed justice and his associates most certainly colluded AND obstructed justice

Jared Kushner and Donnie, Jr ring a bell?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.1.5  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Ronin2 @4.1.1    3 months ago
They found a lot of them, and prosecuted several people involved with the Trump administration and campaign; but not one of them were for collusion with Russia during the elections.  Kind of hard to swallow for the left isn't it?

The only reason criminal conspiracy was never charged is because Mueller couldn't prove Trumps associates knew they were dealing with the Russian government. So basically, they did conspire with Russians, they just weren't sure those Russians were working for Putin. And as you point out, there were " a lot" of criminal activity found among Trumps associates, he clearly surrounds himself with bottom feeders, but Mueller was unable to prove any of them criminally conspired with an enemy foreign government. Now, this does not mean Trump and his associates did not know, it's just Mueller wasn't able to gather enough hard evidence of such to prove it. He clearly points out that while he didn't find definitive evidence of criminal conspiracy, nearly a dozen of Trumps associates lied to investigators in an attempt to obstruct their investigation and sadly, in some cases, it may have worked which is why Mueller was unable to make the charge of criminal conspiracy. Personally, I believe the lies themselves are evidence of criminal conspiracy considering the fact none of Trumps associates would have a reason to lie if they weren't trying to hide their true understanding of who they were really working with when giving campaign data to a Russian oligarch or meeting in Trump tower to discuss getting dirt on Hillary.

But the reality is, even if the mountain of lies were just incidental and completely benign, all of this is just more evidence of how chaotic Trumps white house has been from the very beginning and how truly incompetent this President is. Trump should be impeached just on the fact that he has refused to acknowledge the Russian attack our elections and his dereliction of duty in responding to it. He is putting our nation at increased risk due to his belief that any admission that the Russian government did want him to win and did actively work toward that goal on his behalf would diminish his win in 2016. So he's putting America and our free and fair elections in further jeopardy all because of his monumental hubris, choosing not to combat this extreme threat to our Democracy all because of unwarranted pride. Trump is a disgrace to humanity let alone the Presidency. He exemplifies the worst of mankind. Greed, jealousy, sloth, narcissism, perversion and pride all wrapped up in a serial adulterer born with a silver spoon in his mouth and imaginary bone spurs in his heels.

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1.6  It Is ME  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.1.4    3 months ago
but I think he obstructed justice

How do you obstruct something that didn't occur.

Mueller Report states:

NOT ONE AMERICAN WAS FOUND TO HAVE COLLUDED WITH RUSSIANS.

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  It Is ME @4.1.6    3 months ago

That's what Barr's report says.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1.8  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.7    3 months ago
That's what Barr's report says.  

That's what the Mueller report said. Barr just Quoted the report !

 
 
 
lib50
4.1.9  lib50  replied to  It Is ME @4.1.6    3 months ago

That is not what it says.  Bottom line, Trumpers were too stupid to make it worth prosecuting for conspiracy, but the certainly did work with Russians and expected to benefit from their help.  And Russians were there to help Trump win, or at least sow the seeds for undermining her if she won.  Trump's campaign did work with Russians and it is in the report.  Legal bar not met, but the Trumpers actions did happen. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.10  Sean Treacy  replied to  lib50 @4.1.9    3 months ago
Trumpers were too stupid to make it worth prosecuting for conspiracy

Why do you write things that aren't true?

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.11  Tessylo  replied to  It Is ME @4.1.8    3 months ago
'That's what the Mueller report said. Barr just Quoted the report !'

No, that's  not what Mueller's report said.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1.12  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.11    3 months ago
No, that's  not what Mueller's report said.

Enlighten me then !

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1.13  It Is ME  replied to  lib50 @4.1.9    3 months ago
That is not what it says.

Really ?

Please show me what the Mueller Report ACTUALLY SAID that makes you put up a comment like that ! jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

I like "Learning". jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
ArkansasHermit-too
4.1.14  ArkansasHermit-too  replied to  It Is ME @4.1.13    3 months ago
Please show me what the Mueller Report ACTUALLY SAID that makes you put up a comment like that !

Mueller specifically states in his report that he did not pursue collusion because that's just a Trump trope which has no value except to his sycophants.

That's why Barr regurgitated the words "No Collusion" so many times, right into the upturned mouths of the shrinking number of Americans that believe Trump is a competent leader.

From the Muller report;

In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of collusion.

In so doing, the Office recognized that the word collude was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigations scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation.

But collusion is not a specif offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law.

For those reasons, the Offices focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.

In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign term that appears in the appointment order with Russian election interference activities.

Like collusion, coordination does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law.
We understood coordination to require an agreement, tacit or express, between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.

That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the others actions or interests.

We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

.

Mueller notes many contacts between the Trump gang and the Russians but decided that if he took them to court under the conspiracy laws dictates that the Trump gang would have a good chance of getting off with a diminished capacity defense.

IE, Mueller decided that the Trump fools were too stupid to know they were breaking the law when they went to the Russians in hopes of getting stolen dirt on Hillery.

That info is also in the report but since you enjoy learning I'll let you look it up.

.

As for all of Trumps obstructions, Mueller notes them in his report but states that the justice departments ruling that a sitting Presidents can't be charged led him to leave getting justice for those crimes in the hands of Congress or future courts after Trump gets voted out of office.

Of course then along comes Barr pissing on Mueller's work, lying to the American people about what the report says, lying to Congress when asked if Mueller agreed to his whitewash;

April 2019; (not an exact read back, but accurate in what happened)

Congressman, "Did Mueller agree with your summation of his report"

Barr, "Don't know what Mueller thinks"

Mueller's Letter to Barr MARCH 2019,

Paraphrased;

Barr, you lying sack of shat!

The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions.

Read Mueller's letter here;

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
4.1.15  Trout Giggles  replied to  ArkansasHermit-too @4.1.14    3 months ago

I like how paraphrased that

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.16  Sean Treacy  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.1.4    3 months ago
ed justice and his associates most certainly colluded AND obstructed justice Jared Kushner and Donnie, Jr ring a bell?

Right. the Mueller/Trump Jr/Kushner conspiracy to collude withe Russia. 

Please explain why, in your world,  Mueller gave Trump Jr. and Kushner a free pass...

The absurdity of these types of arguments never ceases to amaze me. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
4.1.17  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.16    3 months ago

Just like your arguments never cease to amaze me

So Donnie Jr didn't meet with a Russian trying to get dirt on Hillary?

Jared never involved himself in back door machinations with the Russians?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.18  Sean Treacy  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.1.17    3 months ago

By all means, explain why Mueller gave Trump Jr a free pass to collude (assuming you mean conspire) with the Russians and obstruct justice.

  I'm sure Mueller mentioned why he allowed them to commit felonies..

So Donnie Jr didn't meet with a Russian trying to get dirt on Hillary?

Oh. you think Mueller was unaware of that meeting because if only knew, Trump Jr. would have been charged with conspiracy. 

That's your argument. Mueller just didn't know what happened. 

 
 
 
Ender
4.1.19  Ender  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.1.17    3 months ago

Prince meeting with Russians on an island...

 
 
 
Ender
4.1.20  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.18    3 months ago

Because Barr would not indict. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.21  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @4.1.20    3 months ago
Because Barr would not indic

So you believe Mueller lacked the power to indict? 

 
 
 
Ender
4.1.22  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.21    3 months ago

In a way, yes.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.23  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @4.1.22    3 months ago

Except he obviously did have the power to indict and exercised it.

But by all means, explain how he lacked the power to indict Kushner and Trump Jr. 

 
 
 
Ender
4.1.24  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.23    3 months ago

Kushner don't know. From what I gather, Mueller was going by the AG idea that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

 
 
 
epistte
4.1.25  epistte  replied to  Ronin2 @4.1.1    3 months ago
Funny how the left can overlook Obama's obstruction of any and all investigations; but are hell bent on charging Trump for obstructing an illegal investigation based on lies.

What Obama obstructions and investigations are you referring to.

How can the Mueller report be illegal when it found more than 11 instances of potential or attempted obstruction of justice?

 
 
 
epistte
4.1.26  epistte  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.21    3 months ago
So you believe Mueller lacked the power to indict? 

His job was very narrowly defined. He was to investigate and report.  It is up to Congress to decide if it is to indict. 

 
 
 
TTGA
4.1.27  TTGA  replied to  epistte @4.1.26    3 months ago
It is up to Congress to decide if it is to indict. 

Incorrect.  Whether or not to indict is decided by the Attorney General.  Congress does not have the authority to make that decision.

 
 
 
dennis smith
4.1.28  dennis smith  replied to  Ronin2 @4.1.1    3 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
4.2  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Tacos! @4    3 months ago
This is a lot to swallow with virtually no evidence.
It's not a question of evidence. That the letter was written by Mueller and sent to Barr is not in dispute. The contents of the letter and the spirit in which it was written is not in dispute. Besides, anyone can read both the report and AG Barr's 4-page memo, and easily conclude that Barr misrepresented the report's findings
What is newsworthy here is that Mueller took the uncharacteristic step of making his disappointment known.
 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.2.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @4.2    3 months ago

The memo was a summary of the final report. No evidence of any wrong doing on Trump's, or even Barr's part.

Spin away!

 
 
 
lib50
4.2.2  lib50  replied to  Greg Jones @4.2.1    3 months ago

READ THE DAMN REPORT BEFORE YOU SPIN THE BARRSHIT.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
4.2.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  lib50 @4.2.2    3 months ago

You're inventing some pretty good words today.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.2.4  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.2.3    3 months ago

There are some people here who are essentially trolls. We all know who they are. 

Their input sounds almost robotic. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
4.2.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.4    3 months ago

Not lib50, tho. She's invented "Barrspin" and "Barrshit" already this morning. She's got me laughing my ass off

 
 
 
lib50
4.2.6  lib50  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.2.5    3 months ago

You should hear what I say out loud as I read or watch some of the stuff, especially in this hearing today. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
4.2.7  Trout Giggles  replied to  lib50 @4.2.6    3 months ago

I have a feeling I would pee my pants

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.2.8  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.4    3 months ago
Their input sounds almost robotic

That would yours truly. Like a broken record.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.9  Dulay  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @4.2    3 months ago
What is newsworthy here is that Mueller took the uncharacteristic step of making his disappointment known.

BINGO! 

Fox pundits have been claiming for days that IF Mueller had a problem with Barr's summary, he would call Barr out. 

NOW we know that Mueller did indeed 'go to paper' on Barr.

 
 
 
Split Personality
4.3  Split Personality  replied to  Tacos! @4    3 months ago
Unnamed sources again with only the vaguest description of why we should believe them. Seems like more reason to doubt the veracity of this story.

We believed Deep Throat 47 years ago, what's changed?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
4.3.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Split Personality @4.3    3 months ago

Did people believe him, tho (Deep Throat)?

I know my parents and extended family didn't

 
 
 
Split Personality
4.3.2  Split Personality  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.3.1    3 months ago

Eggsactly, but he was eventually proven correct.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5  Bob Nelson    3 months ago

Mueller has been very careful to protect his report in the event (ha, ha) of legal action around it.

 
 
 
luther28
6  luther28    3 months ago

Oh what tangled webs we weave, when we practice to deceive.

It is all about to unravel for the Mr. Trump and his merry band of sycophants and liars.

 
 
 
MUVA
6.1  MUVA  replied to  luther28 @6    3 months ago

No it isn't you believe CNN too funny.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @6.1    3 months ago

Yes it is.  You believe the turd Rump.  Too funny!

 
 
 
MUVA
6.1.2  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.1    3 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
luther28
6.1.3  luther28  replied to  MUVA @6.1    3 months ago

Did not come from CNN, you presume too much.

Perhaps folks need to turn off the television once in a while and begin to read print again.

 
 
 
MUVA
6.1.4  MUVA  replied to  luther28 @6.1.3    3 months ago

What is going to unravel I'm sure CNN will tell you then you can make believe you heard it somewhere else.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @6.1.2    3 months ago

[deleted

 
 
 
luther28
6.1.6  luther28  replied to  MUVA @6.1.4    3 months ago

Pog mo thoin.

I tried to tell you nicely not to presume.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6.1.7  Trout Giggles  replied to  luther28 @6.1.6    3 months ago

I know what you said.....

 
 
 
luther28
6.1.8  luther28  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1.7    3 months ago

I believe that it your second catch on one of my sub rosa ploys:)

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6.1.9  Trout Giggles  replied to  luther28 @6.1.8    3 months ago

We work well together. :)

 
 
 
Greg Jones
6.2  Greg Jones  replied to  luther28 @6    3 months ago
It is all about to unravel for the Mr. Trump and his merry band of sycophants and liars.

You've been saying that for over two years now. Please give us all the juicy details of what is going to occur.

 
 
 
luther28
6.2.1  luther28  replied to  Greg Jones @6.2    3 months ago

In this particular case, the issuance of the summation of the aspect of obstruction  Mueller report.

Listen, I really do not want this to happen to our President, but sadly for us he has no one to blame but himself. Lies, deceit and all the rest have been his MO since he first crawled out of Queens in the seventies. I'm sorry but our President is not a good person nor are those who have enabled this insanity.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
6.2.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Greg Jones @6.2    3 months ago
You've been saying that for over two years now.

And he has been accurate, it has been unraveling.  However with a Republican Congress for the last 2 years, it has been virtually ignored by those responsible for the checks and balances on the Executive Branch.

 
 
 
dennis smith
6.2.3  dennis smith  replied to  Ozzwald @6.2.2    3 months ago

political hack comment

 
 
 
dennis smith
6.2.4  dennis smith  replied to  luther28 @6.2.1    3 months ago

I'm sorry but our President is not a good person nor are those who have enabled this insanity.

Those who voted him in are the American voters. You sound like Hillary with her despicable comment. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
6.2.5  Ozzwald  replied to  dennis smith @6.2.4    3 months ago
Those who voted him in are the American voters.

No, the American voters voted for Hillary, the electoral college voted in Trump. 

Why do people have such a hard time with that little historical fact?

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.2.6  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @6.2.5    3 months ago

Why do Democrats have such a hard time accepting the fact that Hillary lost to Trump the same way we have always elected Presidents?

 
 
 
luther28
6.2.7  luther28  replied to  dennis smith @6.2.4    3 months ago

If you are going to respond to me, respond to what I said.

I'm sorry but our President is not a good person nor are those who have enabled this insanity.

Where in that comment did I disparage anyone that voted for Mr. Trump? I am referring to those that continue to enable his gross mismanagement (which he learned in business), lies and out and out buffoonery. ie: Barr, most of the GOP members etc.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.2.8  It Is ME  replied to  luther28 @6.2.7    3 months ago
I'm sorry but our President is not a good person nor are those who have enabled this insanity.

He may not be a "Person" you would like to have a beer with (Rose Garden Type), but I'd really like to know how "HE" has hurt "Americans" in this country !

 
 
 
luther28
6.2.9  luther28  replied to  It Is ME @6.2.8    3 months ago

100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans - Center for ...


https://www.americanprogress.org/.../04/.../100-ways-100-days-trump-hurt-americans/
Apr 26, 2017 - After months of campaign promises to help ordinary Americans, President Donald Trump's first 100 days have revealed that his true policy ...
Well I suppose we might begin with this and expound upon it should you wish.
As I stated before, I wish he was not what he has become as he is our President. But shite by any other name is still shite.
 
 
 
It Is ME
6.2.10  It Is ME  replied to  luther28 @6.2.9    3 months ago

I think Trump has been President for longer than 100 days (2 years, 101 days, 21 or so hours). jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

Whom has been complaining based on your list ?

 
 
 
luther28
6.2.11  luther28  replied to  It Is ME @6.2.10    3 months ago

:) Okay I do not have much else going on at the moment, here is another a bit more up to date. But you'll have to look them up for yourself from this point on :)

15 Ways President Trump Has Hurt the American Worker

nymag.com/.../trump-trumka-afl-cio-labor-day-15-ways-hurt-american-worker-populis...
Sep 4, 2018 - Here's a quick rundown of 15 ways the Trump administration has hurt ... To say that Trump's affronts to workers have “outpaced” his aid to them is akin to ... the capacity to press complaints against their bosses in open court.
Sorry, but our President is and has always been who he is.
 
 
 
It Is ME
6.2.12  It Is ME  replied to  luther28 @6.2.11    3 months ago
nymag.com/.../trump-trumka-afl-cio-labor-day-15-ways-hurt-american-worker-populis...

I'll believe a "Report" by a singularity trying to make a name for themselves ! jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

How You Doin' ? 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
6.2.13  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.6    3 months ago
Why do Democrats have such a hard time accepting the fact that Hillary lost to Trump

So once again a reply to a question that has nothing to do with my question.  Please check my comment history and you will see that I have never once questioned the fact that Trump "won" the job of POTUS from the electoral college.  I have never claimed that his win was anything other than legitimate as far as the electoral college is concerned.

So, why is it you always butt into a conversation with other people, with claims that have nothing to do with the actual conversation?

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.2.14  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @6.2.13    3 months ago

You wrote this, which I felt needed a response:

No, the American voters voted for Hillary, the electoral college voted in Trump.
Why do people have such a hard time with that little historical fact?

Now, I haven't heard anyone claiming that Trump won the popular vote. If someone did, they are wrong.

But Americans surely elected Trump just like they elected every President in your lifetime.

Why do you have a problem with that little historical fact?

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.2.15  It Is ME  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.14    3 months ago
Why do you have a problem with that little historical fact?

"History MUST BE STAMPED OUT" !

The Liberal way !

 
 
 
ArkansasHermit-too
6.2.16  ArkansasHermit-too  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.14    3 months ago
But Americans surely elected Trump just like they elected every President in your lifetime.

.

Trump is only the 5th person in our Countries whole history to be rejected by the American voters but became President because of the EC.

Trying to pretend that Trump becoming President, over the objection of most Americans, is a NORMAL thing is just stupid.

The EC, (a toxic legacy of our Country's slave days), is only still around BECAUSE it has so rarely overridden the will of the American voters in the past.

Back in the late 60's, when the Republican party still had some members with honor, President Nixon and the Republican party joined with the D's in the last major attempt at getting rid of the EC, after they watched as Trumps forerunner, George Wallace, captured 46 EC votes.

Even Nixon recognized the danger of keeping the EC around, how it could one day in the future thwart the will of the American voters and let scum become President.

.

In 1969, Democrats and Republicans united to get rid of the electoral college. Here's what happened

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.2.17  Texan1211  replied to  ArkansasHermit-too @6.2.16    3 months ago

You can say that all you want, but the simple fact is Trump won like everyone wins--by securing at least 270 electoral votes as required by law.

Now, whining about the EC sounds like sour grapes because your sure-fire thing messed up.

Too bad.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
6.2.18  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.14    3 months ago
Now, I haven't heard anyone claiming that Trump won the popular vote. If someone did, they are wrong.

Then you never bothered to read the comment that I replied to!!!

But Americans surely elected Trump just like they elected every President in your lifetime.

Again no, the election was won by Hillary, the job of POTUS was won by Trump.  Unless you wish to define an election as being only by the electoral college.

e·lec·tion
/əˈlekSH(ə)n/
noun
  1. a formal and organized choice by vote of a person for a political office or other position.
    "the 1860 presidential election"
    synonyms: ballotvotepollreferendumplebiscitegeneral electionlocal election, popular votestraw vote/poll, show of hands More
    • the action of electing or the fact of being elected.
      "his election to the House of Representatives"
 
 
 
Texan1211
6.2.19  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @6.2.18    3 months ago

Spin it any way you want.

If you can show me in the Constitution what part the popular vote for President plays, do so.

until then, Presidents, like always, are chosen by the EC.

The fact you don't like the results has nothing to do with the reality of how Presidents are actually elected.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
6.2.20  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.19    3 months ago
If you can show me in the Constitution what part the popular vote for President plays, do so.

You disputed it, so you are supposed to show me where in the Constitution it states that different citizens have different voting rights.  I can't find anything that does that.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.2.21  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @6.2.20    3 months ago
You disputed it, so you are supposed to show me where in the Constitution it states that different citizens have different voting rights.

Oh FFS.

I didn't ever say different people had different rights. Don't attempt to put words in my mouth and then try to debate what you put there. I won't allow it.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
6.2.22  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.21    3 months ago
I didn't ever say different people had different rights.

You indicated that some people's votes counted more than others, same thing, voting rights.  Now prove it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.2.23  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @6.2.22    3 months ago

Where did I say anything like that?

Quote me then.

Stop making stuff up and claiming I said it.

I won't play that with you. Do NOT put words in my mouth and attempt to debate them. That is intellectually dishonest.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
6.2.24  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.23    3 months ago
Stop making stuff up and claiming I said it.

So now you are saying that you do believe in 1 person 1 vote?  Then what are you arguing about???

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.2.25  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @6.2.24    3 months ago

I knew you couldn't quote me. 

That is what happens when you attempt to put words in my mouth and try to debate them. 

Very intellectually dishonest.

Find someone willing to play that with you.

It certainly won't be me.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
6.2.26  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.25    3 months ago

Find someone willing to play that with you.

It certainly won't be me.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

Dude, YOU weren't even a part of this conversation until YOU decided to butt inYOU were never invited.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.2.27  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @6.2.26    3 months ago

So, once AGAIN, you can not prove that I ever wrote what you CLAIMED.

Pitiful.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7  Sean Treacy    3 months ago

Accurate headline for those who actually read the story:

“Mueller believes Barr summary accurate, thinks media reports were misleading”

 
 
 
Don Overton
7.1  Don Overton  replied to  Sean Treacy @7    3 months ago

Sean that  comment is nothing short of a trollism and just more Bill Barr isms

 
 
 
freepress
8  freepress    3 months ago

Barr should resign, he lied under oath, he has stated that he may not show up to testify in Congress, which means a subpoena and it was obvious he was trying to cover up and spin the report. 

So it becomes clear why Rosenstein resigned before this hit the news, he kissed up to Trump in his resignation letter just to save his pension, knowing Trump would McCabe him by firing him without his pension.

Both lawsuits have upheld getting Trumps foreign bank accounts and his emoluments lawsuit is permitted to go forward. All we need to find for sure is getting Barr on the record for perjury, the unredacted Mueller report, and the foreign bank information to match up to the investigation.

 
 
 
cms5
8.1  cms5  replied to  freepress @8    3 months ago
Barr should resign, he lied under oath, he has stated that he may not show up to testify in Congress, which means a subpoena and it was obvious he was trying to cover up and spin the report.

What lies did he tell under oath? How did he 'spin' the report?

Barr will appear before the Senate this morning. He may not show up for the House hearing...which is totally understandable. Why should he subject himself to a partisan grilling over a report by special council? Instead, the House should put Mueller and his minions in front of them...let them answer questions. It's their report.

 
 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.1.1    3 months ago

I am watching it. Lindsey Graham is a national embarrassment. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
8.1.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.2    3 months ago

That's an understatement

 
 
 
XDm9mm
8.1.4  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.2    3 months ago
Lindsey Graham is a national embarrassment. 

For what?  Telling the truth?

Or are you fine with purported FBI agents COLLUDING to stop a duly elected President from doing what he was elected to do?

 
 
 
lib50
8.1.5  lib50  replied to  XDm9mm @8.1.4    3 months ago

How is anybody stopping Trump from doing what he considers his 'job'.   Daily hours and hours of 'executive time' watching Fox, eating hamberders, calling right wing media to toss a few more lies to his base and spend time with Steven Miller to find the best way to stick it to immigrants and minorities.  He's still doing it.  The only one stopping Trump is Trump and occasionally his flunkies, who decide not to break the law when he orders them to.

 
 
 
lib50
8.1.6  lib50  replied to  cms5 @8.1    3 months ago

Guess conservatives are cowards who can't face tough situations.  Hillary spent hours grilled by the most partisan bullshit ever, answering and not whining.   Republicans have taken partisanship to the highest levels for years now.    Every Trumper to testify has balked and whined and most have lied.  They try to obfuscate and misrepresent pretty much anything not good for Trump.  Barr put out a spin summary that didn't reflect what Mueller said in his report, and that is why there was so much confusion - that was the entire purpose for the Barrspin summary.  And the gop is continuing.  Practically the first thing out of Grahams mouth was about Hillary.

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  XDm9mm @8.1.4    3 months ago
'Or are you fine with purported FBI agents COLLUDING to stop a duly elected President from doing what he was elected to do?'

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
cms5
9  cms5    3 months ago

Who spoke to the Washington Post about this 'previously undisclosed private letter'? If the WaPo had the letter, why didn't they print it? They 'quote' what was written...

Who revealed the discussion between Mueller and Barr regarding the letter? Seriously...we cannot trust the media even 50% without proof.

Barr's memo to Congress prior to releasing the redacted Mueller report was not a summary of the report. If there was public confusion...we can certainly blame the media.

In the 'call' Mueller said he was concerned that the media coverage of the obstruction investigation was misguided and creating public misunderstandings about the office's work. According to Justice Department officials.

Mueller was asked if he thought Barr's memo to Congress was inaccurate...Mueller said he did not, but felt that the media coverage of it was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
9.1  XDm9mm  replied to  cms5 @9    3 months ago
According to Justice Department officials.

It's always the 'unnamed, anonymous sources' that some publications use when they want to stir up the shit pot to make themselves relevant.

 
 
 
Don Overton
9.1.1  Don Overton  replied to  XDm9mm @9.1    3 months ago

How about giving some factual information to justify such a trolling comment

 
 
 
Dulay
9.2  Dulay  replied to  cms5 @9    3 months ago
Who spoke to the Washington Post about this 'previously undisclosed private letter'? If the WaPo had the letter, why didn't they print it? They 'quote' what was written...

An interagency document is NOT private. A review of the NARA should help you understand that. 

Who revealed the discussion between Mueller and Barr regarding the letter? Seriously...we cannot trust the media even 50% without proof.

Barr characterized it yesterday under oath though he refused to make staff notes public. BTW, those notes are also covered by the NARA. 

Barr's memo to Congress prior to releasing the redacted Mueller report was not a summary of the report. If there was public confusion...we can certainly blame the media.

Summary: 

a brief statement or account of the main points of something.

That is exactly what Barr wrote. 

In the 'call' Mueller said he was concerned that the media coverage of the obstruction investigation was misguided and creating public misunderstandings about the office's work.

According to Barr. 

According to Justice Department officials.

According to Barr. We haven't heard from any other 'Justice Department officials'. 

Mueller was asked if he thought Barr's memo to Congress was inaccurate...Mueller said he did not, but felt that the media coverage of it was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said.

AGAIN, according to Barr. If you READ his summary, Barr LIED in it.

Mueller did NOT state that he presented the evidence of obstruction so that the AG could make a decision on indictment. In fact, the report ASSUMES that the DOJ CANNOT indict a sitting POTUS per the OLC ruling. Mueller clearly states that he presented the evidence for review by CONGRESS as the only venue to address obstruction by a POTUS. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
10  Tacos!    3 months ago

And on the next day, the Los Angels Times actually published the letter. Here:

All the letter does is point out that the summary letter is not as complete as it could be (how could it be? it's only 4 pages) and suggest that public confusion might be alleviated by releasing some documents early before the full redactions are done. The reason for this is to restore public confidence in the integrity of the investigation.

Nowhere does Mueller object to anything Barr said or claim that he somehow misrepresented the results of the investigation. Nowhere does the letter indicate a rift between the special counsel and the AG as the New York Times claimed. To the contrary, they were working together on preparing the release of the report.

The letter is not a "complaint" as the Washington Post claims. It simply acknowledges public confusion - caused by Democratic politicians and news media - and offers a suggestion for combatting that confusion.

More fake news.

 
 
 
lib50
10.1  lib50  replied to  Tacos! @10    3 months ago

Nope, that is not what is said and not fake news.  Remember, you believe a pathological liar, not much can be done to convince us your sources will be facts.

 
 
 
Tacos!
10.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  lib50 @10.1    3 months ago
you believe a pathological liar

Bill Barr is a pathological liar? Or is it Bob Mueller? Maybe you mean the LA Times, which published the letter. Those are the only sources I have referenced here (aside from WP and the NYT from the seed), so what the heck are you talking about?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
10.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tacos! @10.1.1    3 months ago
Maybe you mean the LA Times, which published the letter

IF I understand the point, Mueller's actual letter can't be trusted because the LA Times doesn't publish facts, or something. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
10.1.3  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @10.1.1    3 months ago

What we found out in the last two days is that almost immediately after Barr released his 4 page summary of the Mueller report, on Mar 24, Mueller himself was telling Barr that Barr was misrepresenting the report. 

Did we know any of this at the time? No, because Barr concealed it. For 22 more days, giving Trump the breathing space to claim complete exoneration based on Barr's 4 page summary. 

Barr is disgraced at this point. That is the only plausible takeaway. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
10.1.4  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @10.1.1    3 months ago

here is part of the Mueller letter

512

 
 
 
JohnRussell
10.1.5  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.4    3 months ago

As we can clearly see, Mueller says that Barr's summary is the cause of the public confusion about the results of the report. 

We also see at the top that Mueller specifically asks Barr to release the executive summaries immediately. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
10.1.6  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.5    3 months ago
Nowhere does Mueller object to anything Barr said or claim that he somehow misrepresented the results of the investigation. Nowhere does the letter indicate a rift between the special counsel and the AG as the New York Times claimed. To the contrary, they were working together on preparing the release of the report.

The letter is not a "complaint" as the Washington Post claims. It simply acknowledges public confusion - caused by Democratic politicians and news media - and offers a suggestion for combatting that confusion.

More fake news.

Tacos, the only fake news on this forum at this moment is the bs you are trying to spread. 

The letter clearly blames the Barr 4 page summary for the "public confusion". 

He clearly says the summary misrepresented the full report

"The summary letter ....did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this Office's work and CONCLUSIONS. "

 
 
 
lib50
10.1.7  lib50  replied to  Tacos! @10.1.1    3 months ago

Trump is a pathological liar.  He asks for loyalty from his hires and expects them to serve him and not the country.  He has his people lie for him every day as well.  Barr is one of his people, we saw his audition reel.  So are Hucklefu@k and Conway, both polished liars.  Pretty much everyone who parrots Trump lies.  That's how it works when you repeat lies.  Broken down enough for you?  

Anybody else notice how ignorant and uninformed Barr is?  He didn't seem to know anything about what he is making decisions on.  He will never have his reputation back, he works for Trump, not the USA.  You could tell when he was so uncomfortable and didn't want to answer directly. 

 
 
 
Ender
10.1.8  Ender  replied to  lib50 @10.1.7    3 months ago

Scary that the head of the agency doesn't know very much. Of course I think he is just lying through his teeth.

Then he was putting down Mueller and now refuses to come back and answer questions for the House.

 
 
 
lib50
10.1.9  lib50  replied to  Ender @10.1.8    3 months ago

I figured he wouldn't have the balls to face democrats.   Meow!

 
 
 
dennis smith
10.1.10  dennis smith  replied to  lib50 @10.1    3 months ago

The pathological liar was not elected in 2016 but unfortunately one was elected in 2008 and 2012

 
 
 
dennis smith
10.1.11  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.6    3 months ago

You said you would live with the Mueller report for two years yet when it was released you didn't. Mueller failed to provide what you expected. Now you believe a letter from Mueller trying to find Barr guilty of not doing what Mueller couldn't accomplish - that is hilarious 

 
 
 
Texan1211
10.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  dennis smith @10.1.11    3 months ago
You said you would live with the Mueller report for two years yet when it was released you didn't. Mueller failed to provide what you expected. Now you believe a letter from Mueller trying to find Barr guilty of not doing what Mueller couldn't accomplish - that is hilarious

Heck, I'm still waiting for everyone to accept the results of the 2016 election!

You know they were so certain that Mueller was going to do what Democrats couldn't do--get Trump out of office. Just as certain as they were that Trump couldn't beat Hillary. Just as certain of other stuff proven to be wrong. What did Reagan say about folks like that?

And you are right--it IS freaking hilarious!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
10.1.13  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  dennis smith @10.1.11    3 months ago

We've been waiting for three or four years for you to say something substantial, and still waiting. Hope springs eternal. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
10.1.14  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.12    3 months ago

I suppose you think Barr was a star today. 

We really have to accept the fact that the right is extremely uninformed or under informed, then a lot of these exchanges make more sense

 
 
 
Texan1211
10.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.14    3 months ago
I suppose you think Barr was a star today.

You can suppose any old thing you want, and it doesn't have to be even grounded in reality--obviously.

We really have to accept the fact that the right is extremely uninformed or under informed, then a lot of these exchanges make more sense

I would say making uninformed suppositions about people you don't know is completely opposite of "making sense".

Who cares anyways? Congress has the Mueller Report. When will the articles of impeachment be filed, and what is taking so long?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
10.1.16  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.15    3 months ago

Your under informed comments are generally boring. 

[deleted]

 
 
 
Ender
10.1.17  Ender  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.14    3 months ago
I suppose you think Barr was a star today. 

Of course they do. Sticking up for trump is all they care about.

 
 
 
Tacos!
10.1.18  Tacos!  replied to  lib50 @10.1.7    3 months ago
Trump is a pathological liar.

If you say so, but I was not talking about Trump and whether or not I believe Trump is not relevant to anything I was talking about.

 
 
 
lib50
10.1.19  lib50  replied to  Tacos! @10.1.18    3 months ago
Trump is not relevant to anything I was talking about.

Um, unfortunately for you, he is relevant to everything in this seed, since he is reason Barr is lying.  And kind of relevant to everything conservatives say now.  When you believe and promote lies, there is a point nobody listens to what you say about anything.  Because its likely not true.  Most of us can't live in perpetual fantasyland.  Liars and the people who repeat them automatically get discounted after a while. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
10.1.20  Tacos!  replied to  lib50 @10.1.19    3 months ago
he is reason Barr is lying

If you can, explain how that is true. Just declaring it to be relevant doesn't make it so. You haven't given me a reason to disbelieve Barr.

More importantly, you haven't even explained why that would matter. Bill Barr didn't conduct the investigation or write the report. Bob Mueller did. And last I heard from pretty much everyone on the Left, he was an honorable trustworthy investigator who would deliver the truth on Donald Trump.

Well, he did that. But you and your party don't like what he found (or failed to find) and now you want to make all sorts of wild conspiracy claims. It's beyond ridiculous at this point.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
10.1.21  KDMichigan  replied to  lib50 @10.1.19    3 months ago

What do conservatives say? No collusion? 

Just because the liberal snowflakes can't accept the fact that after they put all their hopes and dreams on Mueller's report and he found no collusion they want to have temper tantrums. Who gives a shit what Barr's summary was. The whole report is right there for you so please show me where Barr's summary was wrong? Nobody cares about Sniveling Liberals feelings. NO COLLUSION!!!!!!

 
 
 
Dulay
10.1.22  Dulay  replied to  KDMichigan @10.1.21    3 months ago
What do conservatives say? No collusion? 

What did the Mueller report say? No CRIMINAL conspiracy. It documented plenty of collusion. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
10.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tacos! @10    3 months ago

Nowhere does Mueller object to anything Barr said or claim that he somehow misrepresented the results of the investigation. 

It's unreal reading through this thread. So many of the "progressives" posts are simply not tethered to reality. They are simply fantasies, probably based upon reading headlines on far left sites that prey upon their ignorant "readers" and then get taken for  Gospel.  They just make facts up and they get repeated by other posters.  It's like a game of telephone for Trump Derangement Sufferers. 

There's plenty to criticize Trump for, their apparent compulsive need to make up facts and spout silly conspiracies is a depressing statement about the contemporary left. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
10.2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sean Treacy @10.2    3 months ago

Then let's see a criticism of trmp from you

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
10.2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.2.1    3 months ago

He's not well informed, can be incoherent when speaking off the cuff and says whatever sounds good to him at the moment.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
10.2.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sean Treacy @10.2.2    3 months ago

Very good

 
 
 
JohnRussell
10.2.4  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @10.2    3 months ago

The letter that Mueller sent Barr on Mar 27 was essentially about one thing - Mueller wanted Barr to release the executive summaries of the final report that the Mueller team had written. Mueller clearly expresses that without the executive summaries Barr's interpretation had been misleading. 

So did Barr release the executive summaries the next day? 

The executive summaries were held back , along with the rest of the report, for three more weeks and they were made public on April 18th. 

So, Mueller told Barr that without the executive summaries the Mueller report was being misrepresented, and Barr did NOTHING. Sean, you are shooting blanks as you so often do. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
10.2.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @10.2.4    3 months ago
Mueller wanted Barr to release the executive summaries of the final report that the Mueller team had written.

And Barr didn't want to release the report piecemeal. What's the crime here?

Per the statute authorizing Mueller, Mueller's report was for the AG's eyes only. He didn't have to share any of it, with anyone. The idea that Mueller has some power to decide what was released and when is crazy.

 Barr did NOTHING

Except release the entire report that he was under no obligation to release.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
10.2.6  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @10.2.5    3 months ago

Sean , you are of the more competent right wingers here, but you have gone down a rabbit hole over Trump. 

"Barr didnt want to release the report piecemeal"

What he did was release what he wanted to release , the "conclusions" that HE had come to. He took it on himself to characterize the REPORT for 25 days with no other view of it made known during that time, INCLUDING THE VIEW OF THE MAN WHO LED IT FOR TWO YEARS. 

He did release it "piecemeal", to the extent and in the form that HE wanted to. 

When Mueller, who knew what was in the full report, told Barr that Barr was misrepresenting the report , and asked Barr specifically to release the executive summaries, Barr ignored Mueller for 22 more days. 

Why? So that Trump could use those 22 days to spin the report as "complete exoneration".

If Barr had released the executive summaries the day after the letter requesting that he do so, you might have something of a case. He didn't and you don't. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
10.2.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @10.2.6    3 months ago
What he did was release what he wanted to release , the "conclusions" that HE had come to.

Well, yeah.  Barr's conclusion is what mattered. Do you recall that Mueller punted on the question of obstruction? 

Since Mueller ducked his duty and deferred to Barr, Barr's conclusion is the only one that really matters, legally.    

Mueller agrees that Barr summarized his conclusions accurately, which is all you can really ask of a summary. 

When Mueller, who knew what was in the full report, told Barr that Barr was misrepresenting the report

He said nothing of the sort.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
10.2.8  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @10.2.7    3 months ago
When Mueller, who knew what was in the full report, told Barr that Barr was misrepresenting the report
-
He said nothing of the sort. 

He sure did

Mueller clearly says the summary misrepresented the full report

"The summary letter ....did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this Office's work and CONCLUSIONS. "

Mueller wrote that the Barr summary did not fully capture the substance and CONCLUSIONS of the full report. 

Mueller also said that the Barr summary had caused public confusion about "critical aspects" of the final report. 

 
 
 
Dulay
10.2.9  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @10.2.7    3 months ago
Since Mueller ducked his duty and deferred to Barr, Barr's conclusion is the only one that really matters, legally. 

Wow, I must have missed that part of the report. Please cite the volume and page that states Mueller deferred to Barr. 

Mueller agrees that Barr summarized his conclusions accurately, which is all you can really ask of a summary.

Again, WHERE? 

He said nothing of the sort.

Well Mueller didn't say he agrees with Barr's summary either but that didn't stop you from claiming he did. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
10.2.10  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @10.2.8    3 months ago
..did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this Office's work and CONCLUSIONS. "

So he didn't, at any point, claim Barr misrepresented the report.   He just wanted more context.  

In fact, he testified under oath that he confirmed with Mueller that Mueller  did not believe he misrepresented anything.

It's essentially an a complaint that one summary is better than another.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
10.2.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sean Treacy @10.2.10    3 months ago
Wow, I must have missed that part of the report

Wow. You are just realizing that Mueller refused to offer a judgment about whether Trump committed obstruction of justice? Yikes!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
10.2.12  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @10.2.10    3 months ago
So he didn't, at any point, claim Barr misrepresented the report.   He just wanted more context.  

In fact, he testified under oath that he confirmed with Mueller that Mueller  did not believe he misrepresented anything.

It's essentially an a complaint that one summary is better than another.  

Before now, you would have been one of the last people here I would have thought needed to have the English language explained to them. But your trip to Trumpworld has ended that. 

So he didn't, at any point, claim Barr misrepresented the report. "did not fully capture the ..... substance of this Office's work and conclusions. "

That IS an allegation of misrepresentation. He didnt confine his complaint to "context", he continued that the 4 page summary failed to fully capture the CONCLUSIONS and the SUBSTANCE of the report. 

Instead of acting like see no evil hear no evil monkeys, conservatives should be demanding that Barr and Trump resign.  Then we can try to repair our country. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
10.2.13  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @10.2.12    3 months ago

Release at this time would alleviate the misunderstandings that have arisen and would answer congressional and public questions about the nature and outcome of our investigation.

His statement, in the letter, makes it very clear that the MEDIA needs to see the report because they don't have all the noise they want and need.  "Public questions" are from the MEDIA - not Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public.

So now we see where Mr. Mueller is leaning.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
10.2.14  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  1stwarrior @10.2.13    3 months ago

The word "media" does not appear in the Mueller letter. 

 
 
 
Dulay
10.2.15  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @10.2.11    3 months ago
Wow, I must have missed that part of the report

It's interesting that you chose to hide behind a reply to yourself for this ONE reply. 

Wow. You are just realizing that Mueller refused to offer a judgment about whether Trump committed obstruction of justice? Yikes!

First of all, Mueller did NOT refuse to offer a judgement, he clearly stated that the OLC directive PRECLUDED him from doing so. 

The FACT is, that same OLC directive also precludes Barr from doing so. 

Secondly, there is NOTHING in the Mueller report that states that Mueller 'deferred to Barr'. As I said, Barr is restrained by the same directive as Mueller. 

In FACT, he states in the report that because of the OLC's directive, his intent was to document the evidence for Congress to review and decide whether to use their Constitutional authorities to address any criminal violations by Trump. 

 
 
 
 
Dulay
10.3  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @10    3 months ago
All the letter does is point out that the summary letter is not as complete as it could be (how could it be? it's only 4 pages) and suggest that public confusion might be alleviated by releasing some documents early before the full redactions are done. The reason for this is to restore public confidence in the integrity of the investigation.

The Mueller letter actually infers that the Barr 'summary' CAUSED the 'public confusion' AND that it threatened to undermine the 'full public confidence in the outcome of the investigation'. 

Nowhere does Mueller object to anything Barr said or claim that he somehow misrepresented the results of the investigation. Nowhere does the letter indicate a rift between the special counsel and the AG as the New York Times claimed. To the contrary, they were working together on preparing the release of the report.

The Mueller letter DOES indicate a 'rift'. Mueller makes a point to cite March 5th and 24th meeting and seemed to indicate that he felt like it was made clear to Barr that the summaries created by the investigative team should be released ASAP with little to no redactions. 

The letter indicates to me that Mueller was pissed off that Barr truncated the summaries to snippets to meet his agenda. 

The letter is not a "complaint" as the Washington Post claims. It simply acknowledges public confusion - caused by Democratic politicians and news media - and offers a suggestion for combatting that confusion.
More fake news.

Bullshit. FBI investigators, ESPECIALLY Special Counsel, do not 'go to paper' for no reason. The confusion was CAUSED by Barr because he utterly misrepresented Volume II of the report. 

A quick review of the introductions and summaries of both sections prove that very little redaction was necessary. It could have been done in the same time it took Barr to write his misleading summary. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
10.3.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Dulay @10.3    3 months ago

If Barr had honest intentions at the time, he would have released the executive summaries the day after he received the Mueller letter. End of story. 

He's crooked. Not as crooked as Trump is, (few are), but he's crooked. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
11  Sean Treacy    3 months ago

Andy McCarthy, who's been the most perceptive commentator on the invesitgation since it began, offered this:

"The purportedly private letter to Barr, like Mueller’s purportedly confidential report, was patently meant for public consumption, and thus leaked to the Post late yesterday. The timing is transparently strategic: the leak drops a bomb as Barr was preparing for two days of what promises to be combative congressional hearings, starting this morning; it gives maximum media exposure to Mueller’s diva routine and its Democratic chorus, while the attorney general gets minimal time to respond to asinine cries of that he should be charged with perjury, held in contempt, and – of course – impeached....

Without supervision, Mueller’s staff continued weaving a tale rather than acknowledging that they had not found a crime. For example, the allegation against George Papadopoulos – namely, that he lied about the date of a meeting – could have been charged in a single paragraph. Instead, the charge is accompanied by Mueller’s 14-page “statement of the offense,” which is not a statement of the false-statement offense at all – it is a lot of huffing and puffing about almost-but-not-really collusion.

It is not a prosecutor’s job, under the pretext of “context,” to taint people by publicizing non-criminal conduct. If the investigative subject has committed no offense, the public is customarily told nothing. If a defendant is charged with a relatively minor offense, the indictment is supposed to reflect that.

You are supposed to see the crime for what it is, not view it through the prism of the prosecutor’s big ambitions. If all George Papadopoulos did was fib about when a meeting happened, the function of an indictment is to put him on notice of that charge; it is not to weave a heroic tale of how hard the prosecutor tried to find collusion with a hostile foreign power.

Mueller was annoyed because Barr’s report showed Mueller didn’t do the job he was retained to do, and omitted all the narrative-writing that Mueller preferred to do."

Barr is acting as a responsible prosecutor, Mueller as a politician hoping to slime his enemies without having to show an actual, prosecutable crime. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
11.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @11    3 months ago

Sad that the right is sinking so low, but they are finding their level. 

The contortions allegedly honorable people go to in order to protect a pathological liar like Trump is truly amazing. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
11.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1    3 months ago

I can see why you didn't bother with a substantive response. 

 
 
 
lib50
11.1.2  lib50  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1.1    3 months ago

Damn substantive to me.  It boils down to the lies coming from Trump, every day, and republicans actively repeating those lies ad nauseam.  Pretty substantial body of lies over 2 years, too.  Highly relevant to any discussion about Trump and his minions, along with his words and actions.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
11.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  lib50 @11.1.2    3 months ago

I find it ironic that people who have been lying about Trump conspiring with Russia for two years, now claim bob Barr is untrustworthy for accurately purveying Mueller's conclusions in a professional manner. It's also ironic that Mueller, of all people, is upset because the media supposedly misrepresented his work, after Mueller sat quietly for two years while the media misrepresented the nature of his indictments to perpetuate the false narrative that Trump conspired with Russia.

How many times on this board did people claim 34 indictments (or whatever the number is ) somehow proved "collusion" without having a clue what the indictments actually alleged? 

 
 
 
Dulay
11.1.4  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1.3    3 months ago
It's also ironic that Mueller, of all people, is upset because the media supposedly misrepresented his work,

What's ironic is that is what you garnered from Mueller's letter. 

after Mueller sat quietly for two years while the media misrepresented the nature of his indictments to perpetuate the false narrative that Trump conspired with Russia.

Seriously, y'all seem to want it both ways.

Trump claims he fired Comey because he talked about the Clinton investigation. 

From the Rosenstein letter: 

The Director laid out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial. It is a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do. 

and now you insist that Mueller should have talked about the Trump investigation. 

Sheesh. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
11.1.5  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1    3 months ago

Sad that the right is sinking so low, but they are finding their level.

The right will never be as low as the left 

 
 
 
Don Overton
11.1.6  Don Overton  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1.1    3 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
11.2  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @11    3 months ago
For example, the allegation against George Papadopoulos – namely, that he lied about the date of a meeting – could have been charged in a single paragraph. Instead, the charge is accompanied by Mueller’s 14-page “statement of the offense,” which is not a statement of the false-statement offense at all – it is a lot of huffing and puffing about almost-but-not-really collusion.

The purpose of the report isn't to act as a 'statement of offense', it is to document and contextualize the investigation. 

It is not a prosecutor’s job, under the pretext of “context,” to taint people by publicizing non-criminal conduct.

Prosecutors are REQUIRED to document and reveal exculpatory evidence. 

If the investigative subject has committed no offense, the public is customarily told nothing. If a defendant is charged with a relatively minor offense, the indictment is supposed to reflect that.

The Mueller report is NOT an indictment so his comment is moot. 

You are supposed to see the crime for what it is, not view it through the prism of the prosecutor’s big ambitions. If all George Papadopoulos did was fib about when a meeting happened, the function of an indictment is to put him on notice of that charge; it is not to weave a heroic tale of how hard the prosecutor tried to find collusion with a hostile foreign power.

So lying to the FBI and materially impairing a counter intelligence investigation is just a little 'fib'.

WOW! This Andy dude is obtuse.

Mueller was annoyed because Barr’s report showed Mueller didn’t do the job he was retained to do, and omitted all the narrative-writing that Mueller preferred to do."

Where is this 'Barr report' that this moron speaks of? 

How's THAT for a 'substantive response' Sean? 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
11.2.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @11.2    3 months ago
he purpose of the report isn't to act as a 'statement of offense', it is to document and contextualize the investigation

I mean, the first words you highlighted are "for example, the allegation against George Papadopoulos"  How did you miss he was talking about the Papadapolous indictment?

Prosecutors are REQUIRED to document and reveal exculpatory evidence 

Umm. You understand they are supposed to reveal exculpatory evidence only to the defendant, right?  You know the prosecution doesn't have to give evidence to anyone if it never decides to prosecute, right? 

So lying to the FBI and materially impairing a counter intelligence investigation is just a little 'fib'.

Please explain how lying about the date materially impaired the investigation. A 14 day sentence, must have been been huge!  

But you've missed the point entirely. Try and read the article again. Then read the indictment and see if you can catch up. 

Where is this 'Barr report' that this moron speaks of? 

Wow. How desperate to you have to be to try this as an argument? [deleted]

How's THAT for a 'substantive response' Sean

You should have stuck with John's.  This was, well, sad. 

 
 
 
Dulay
11.2.2  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.2.1    3 months ago
I mean, the first words you highlighted are "for example, the allegation against George Papadopoulos"  How did you miss he was talking about the Papadapolous indictment?

Andy MAY be talking about the 'Statement of Offenses' but he is NOT talking about the Papadopoulos indictment because he was NEVER indicted. In FACT, Papadopoulos WAIVED his right to a Grand Jury indictment. 

Sheesh. 

Oh and BTFW, Andy misrepresented the content of the Statement of Offense TOO. 

But you've missed the point entirely. Try and read the article again. Then read the indictment and see if you can catch up.

Can't, there is NO indictment of Papadopoulos. 

Please explain how lying about the date materially impaired the investigation.

Read the Statement of Offense. jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

A 14 day sentence, must have been been huge!

He made a plea deal. Though he DID beg Trump for a pardon so those 14 days must have meant something to Georgie. 

But you've missed the point entirely. Try and read the article again. Then read the indictment and see if you can catch up.

I did and the POINT that I am talking about is Andy characterizing lying to the FBI as a 'fib'. 

Wow. How desperate to you have to be to try this as an argument? I know playing the fool is your shtick,

How desperate do you have to be to look any further than Andy for a fool...

but even you have to know what's referencing without having it spoon fed to you.

You characterized Andy as "the most perceptive commentator on the invesitgation since it began". One would presume that 'the most perceptive commentator' would SAY what he MEANT. Andy said "Barr's report" yet despite your respect for his commentary, you now insist that I'm not supposed to accept him at his word. 

You should have stuck with John's.

I have nothing to do with John's. 

This was, well, sad.

It is sad that you count on Andy for your understanding of these issues. 

 
 
 
Don Overton
11.2.3  Don Overton  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.2.1    3 months ago
Wow. How desperate to you have to be to try this as an argument? I know playing the fool is your shtick, but even you have to know what's referencing without having it spoon fed to you.

What a wonderful example of trollismjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Don Overton
11.3  Don Overton  replied to  Sean Treacy @11    3 months ago
Barr is acting as a responsible prosecutor, Mueller as a politician hoping to slime his enemies without having to show an actual, prosecutable crime. 

Wrong.  Your trollism are totally conjured bull

 
 
 
Greg Jones
12  Greg Jones    3 months ago

I can't believe that the Democrats are keeping this clown show going and going.

The Mueller report concluded that was no collusion on the part of any American, and no evidence of obstruction of justice that could rise to an actionable level.

This latest quibble over timing is revealing about the intentions of the Congressional Democrats.

Barr was unflappable and laid out the inconvenient truths to the inquisition of leftists.

He is a fine AG and will be going nowhere. Neither will Trump.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
12.1  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Greg Jones @12    3 months ago
I can't believe that the Democrats are keeping this clown show going and going.

what else do they got?

the top of the dnc knows they cannot beat trump in 2020 and the minions are too ignorant to figure that out on their own.   

when the marxist bs fails... it is like watching a slow motion, unstoppable, train wreck... LOL

 
 
 
lib50
12.2  lib50  replied to  Greg Jones @12    3 months ago

Put this in the wrong comment, oops, guess we'll have 2 of them.  Let me change this up! 

clown_2_gina-810x841.jpg

 
 
 
lib50
13  lib50    3 months ago

Here he comes! 

1b75eb.jpg

 
 
 
JohnRussell
14  seeder  JohnRussell    3 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
gooseisgone
14.1  gooseisgone  replied to  JohnRussell @14    3 months ago
deleted for context [ph]

Really...…….you are fucking complaining about answers that you have had for two weeks!

 
 
 
Texan1211
15  Texan1211    3 months ago

Who cares what Mueller objects to?

Congress has the whole Mueller Report.

Where are the articles of impeachment?

 
 
 
Dulay
15.1  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @15    3 months ago
Congress has the whole Mueller Report.

False. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
15.1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Dulay @15.1    3 months ago

Of course it does, except for those few minor retractions that don't affect the context, nature, or substance of it. 

The 4 page memo laid out the conclusions expressed in the full version. Nothing of substance emerged from the full report.

No amount of further investigations will have any bearing on the FACTS that Trump and associates did not collude with the Russians or try to obstruct the illegal investigation started on false evidence and fake pretenses.

The left wing turds are trying destroy Barr because they know he's going to get to the bottom of the nasty dirty tricks they have employed to try to keep Trump from getting elected, and ever since. to sully his record and attempt to keep him from getting reelected. .

 
 
 
Dulay
15.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @15.1.1    3 months ago
Of course it does, except for those few minor retractions, that don't affect the context, nature, or substance of it. 

That sentence is contradictory. 

The 4 page memo laid out the conclusions expressed in the full version.

False. Barr claims that Mueller's INTENT was to delegate the decision on obstruction to Barr. That is a LIE. NOWHERE in the report does Mueller indicate that Barr has any more authority than he does to indict on obstruction. The same OLC ruling that constrains Mueller, constrains Barr. Mueller DOES however state that if he COULD have made an unequivocal declination on obstruction, he would have done so. He could NOT make a declination to indict because the evidence points to multiple cases of obstruction. Again, Barr LIED. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
15.1.3  Greg Jones  replied to  Dulay @15.1.2    3 months ago

You can't tell the truth from a lie??  jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
15.1.4  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @15.1.3    3 months ago
You can't tell the truth from a lie?? 

Why yes, YES I can. Hence my comment. Care to address the facts therein? 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
15.1.5  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @15.1.2    3 months ago
Mueller DOES however state that if he COULD have made an unequivocal declination on obstruction, he would have done so.

In other words, IF he had sufficient EVIDENCE to prove the ALLEGATION in court, he would have noted obstruction.  But he OBVIOUSLY LACKED THE EVIDENCE to prove any allegation.

 
 
 
Dulay
15.1.6  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @15.1.5    3 months ago
In other words, IF he had sufficient EVIDENCE to prove the ALLEGATION in court, he would have noted obstruction. 

Thank you for your utterly obtuse misinterpretation of my comment. 

But he OBVIOUSLY LACKED THE EVIDENCE to prove any allegation.

No XD. The ONLY thing that Mueller OVIOUSLY LACKED was the AUTHORITY, under DOJ/OLC directive, to seek an indictment for a sitting POTUS. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
16  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    3 months ago

In anticipation of the IG report two FBI assets have decided to talk.

Houston we have a problem!

Previous administration was in fact spying for nefarious purposes.

Ooops!

 
 
 
Tessylo
16.1  Tessylo  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @16    3 months ago

Link?

Ooops!

 
 
 
Don Overton
16.2  Don Overton  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @16    3 months ago

[Removed

 
 
 
Don Overton
16.3  Don Overton  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @16    3 months ago
In anticipation of the IG report two FBI assets have decided to talk.--Lie
Facts-https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/us/politics/fbi-government-investigator-trump.html#click=https://t.co/oHqt5LAdVs

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

JumpDrive
igknorantzrulz
loki12
pat wilson
Sean Treacy
Karri


41 visitors