Andrew McCarthy: Mueller's letter to Barr – A neat trick by the Washington Post before hearings begin

  
Via:  vic-eldred  •  3 weeks ago  •  118 comments

Andrew McCarthy: Mueller's letter to Barr – A neat trick by the Washington Post before hearings begin
This complaint was set forth in Mueller’s own letter, dated March 27. The letter is a microcosm of Mueller’s collusion probe: sound and fury, signifying nothing; an investigative process predicated on no criminal conduct, which generated crimes rather than solving one.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


“Mueller complained to Barr about memo on key findings.” That’s the banner headline at the top of the Washington Post’s website Wednesday. But when you click your way to the actual story, it turns out that the headline is not true. Special Counsel Mueller’s complaint, which targeted Attorney General Barr’s March 24 letter explaining the report, is not about the “key findings.” It’s about the narrative.

Mueller’s complaint is that Barr “did not fully capture the context” of Mueller’s magnum opus – the “nature and substance” of the report.

This complaint was set forth in Mueller’s own letter, dated March 27. The letter is a microcosm of Mueller’s collusion probe: sound and fury, signifying nothing; an investigative process predicated on no criminal conduct, which generated crimes rather than solving one.

Parsed carefully (which you have to do with the special counsel’s Jesuitical work), Mueller is precisely not saying that Barr misrepresented his key findings. He is saying that he and the Clinton/Obama minions he recruited to staff the case wrote the report with a certain mood music in mind. To their chagrin, Barr gave us just the no-crime bottom line. Mueller would have preferred for us to feel all the ooze of un-presidential escapades he couldn’t indict but wouldn’t, from his lofty perch, “exonerate.”

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.

The Post’s reporters say they were permitted to “review” the letter yesterday. This phrasing implies that they were not permitted to keep a copy – i.e., no fingerprints on this leak of a close-hold document. Keep that in mind next time you read one of those hagiographies about ramrod straight Bob Mueller who never plays these Washington games, no siree.

The Democrats’ perjury/contempt/impeachment slander against Barr is based on the fact that, in prior congressional testimony, Barr was asked whether Mueller agreed with Barr’s conclusions about the report, including that there was insufficient evidence to charge obstruction. Barr replied that he did not know whether Mueller agreed. Democrats now contend that Barr must have known Mueller disagreed because he had Mueller’s letter. But Mueller’s letter doesn’t say he disagreed with Barr’s conclusion – it says he was unhappy with how his work was being perceived by the public.

Barr and Mueller spoke by phone the day after Mueller sent his letter. If you wade through the first 13 paragraphs of the Post’s story, you finally find the bottom line:

"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."

So even Mueller conceded, through gritted teeth, that Barr’s letter was accurate. The diva was just worried about the media coverage.

No surprise there. Barr’s letter conveyed that Mueller had failed to render a prosecutorial judgment on the only question a special counsel was arguably needed to decide: Was there enough evidence to charge President Trump with obstruction, or should prosecution be declined?

On collusion, Mueller’s report had conveyed what everyone already knew from the indictments Mueller had previously filed, and what Mueller himself must have known very soon after taking over the probe in May 2017: There was no case.

Plainly, this was an obstruction investigation: Mueller was appointed just days after (a) the president’s dismissal of FBI Director James Comey, and (b) the FBI’s opening of an obstruction investigation against the president based on acting Director Andrew McCabe’s harebrained theory that the chief executive’s firing of a subordinate can constitute obstruction of justice – under circumstances where (1) the president had the power to halt the Russia investigation but never did; (2) the Russia investigation was a counterintelligence matter, which is done for the president, not for prosecution in the justice system (hence, justice cannot be obstructed); and (3) McCabe testified after Comey’s firing that no one had attempted to obstruct the investigation.

Under the circumstances, Mueller’s main job was to answer the obstruction question. He abdicated. Barr’s letter made that obvious. The press coverage elucidated it. This made Mueller very unhappy. So he wrote a letter whining about “context.”

Of course, context is not a prosecutor’s job. That is the stuff of political narratives.

Mueller was not effectively supervised. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein allowed him to get into the political narrative business – just as he allowed the special counsel to persist in the collusion investigation for over a year after it was clear that there was no collusion case.

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.

The Michael Flynn false-statements charge similarly comes with a script about unremarkable discussions between an incoming national security advisor and Russian counterpart that are portrayed as almost-not-quite-collusion.

The Roger Stone indictment for still more process crimes – i.e., crimes the investigation caused rather than examined – is a 20-page epic of “something around here sure smells like collusion.”

No collusion charges, no espionage conspiracy evidence … just enough intrigue to keep a soap opera rolling along.

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.

Before Attorney General Barr issued his letter outlining the special counsel’s conclusions, Mueller was invited to review it for accuracy. Mueller declined. After Barr explained that Mueller had not decided the obstruction question, the press reported on this dereliction. Mueller is miffed about the press coverage … but he can’t say Barr misrepresented his findings.

Like the Mueller investigation, this episode is designed to fuel a political narrative. But we don’t need a narrative – we don’t even need anyone to explain the report plainly. That’s because we now have the report. We can read it for ourselves. The rest is noise.





By Andrew McCarthy

Article is Locked

Find text within the comments Find 
 
Vic Eldred
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

The favored MO of the Washington Post is getting old

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1  Drakkonis  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    3 weeks ago

Thanks for the info. Really sheds light on what's going on. A lot to think about here. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    3 weeks ago

What trick?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @1.2    3 weeks ago

Printing lies--that's the trick.

Read the article--it outlines a lie in the very first paragraph.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.2.2  gooseisgone  replied to  Tessylo @1.2    3 weeks ago
What trick?

trick..

[trik]

scheme intended to deceive 

or

When the Washington Post prints a letter that's over a month old about something that's already know for two weeks so the idiot democrats in congress think something happened.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  gooseisgone @1.2.2    3 weeks ago

Well put.

The idiots HAVE the entire Mueller Report. Who gives a shit if Mueller had his feeling hurt?

Where are the articles of impeachment?

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.4  Tessylo  replied to  gooseisgone @1.2.2    3 weeks ago

There was no trick.  No lies.  

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.2.5  gooseisgone  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.4    3 weeks ago
There was no trick.  No lies

Obviously........ the trick worked.

 
 
 
Sunshine
2  Sunshine    3 weeks ago
The rest is noise.

Most definitely.  Democrats made fools of themselves again.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sunshine @2    3 weeks ago

Yup, they got all the information and they want to destroy Barr. BTW, wasn't Barr well composed despite all the venom being hurled at him from the left?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3  Sean Treacy    3 weeks ago

How the stakes have fallen....In six months, progressives have gone from pronouncing that  the President is a Russian agent being blackmailed for piss tapes by Putin, to freaking out that one summary of a document that has published in it's entirety was published instead of another.  

As  Senator Grassley said yesterday:

"The Democrats and you folks in the media are not concerned about the report. I think you're concerned about the results weren't what you expected. And I think we're finding out that everybody was sold a bunch of snake oil, and now the jig is up!"

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1  Tacos!  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    3 weeks ago
did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions

I think Democrats in Congress are waiting for some nominally neutral party outside their group, and not in the media, to give them validation. If someone in authority (like a special counsel) says Trump did something wrong then they will feel they have credibility to call for impeachment. Unfortunately for them, that's not happening. So, they're going to continue to throw tantrums about anything they can come up with.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4  Sean Treacy    3 weeks ago

Ben Shapiro, no Trump lackey, provided a solid analysis of the situation:

"Mueller’s team uncovered very little new damning material with regard to collusion, and in fact refused to issue any finding at all with regard to obstruction of justice. Barr probably didn’t release Mueller’s summary because Mueller’s summary likely didn’t contain a bottom line with regard to obstruction. Which means that the American public would have been left bewildered as to whether Trump was in fact guilty of prosecutable obstruction of justice.

That confusion was Mueller’s fault. (NOTE: This is coming from someone who has defended Mueller’s integrity for years, called on Trump consistently to stop attacking Mueller, and stated that if Trump fired Mueller, impeachment ought to be on the table.) Mueller had the full capacity to recommend prosecution on obstruction of justice. He had full authority to state that in his view, Trump had obstructed justice. But he didn’t. His 448 page report is a listing of ugly details about Trump’s internal administration behavior, but does not recommend obstruction charges — and indeed, doesn’t substantiate activity that could sustain a prosecution. Mueller knew that."

 
 
 
Greg Jones
5  Greg Jones    3 weeks ago

Ugly is not an impeachable offense.

And now Barr is going to investigate the investigators.

And that is going to get really ugly....for the Democrats, going back to the previous administration.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
6  1stwarrior    3 weeks ago

The key to the entire pizzing contest is - "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."

Media coverage - the Dems/Libs need their dogs braying to keep their profits going - I don't believe there was an investigation to find wrong.  I think the "investigation" was to pour more slander - with an "official" slant.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  1stwarrior @6    3 weeks ago

And the big giveaway was when Barr asked Mueller "what's with the letter, you could have called me at anytime?"  Of course the answer is that Mueller wanted to memorialize his concern that not enough anti-Trump propaganda didn't flow from all of that info from Trump conversations. The same conversations that were given to Mueller by Trump.  The same conversations that shouldn't get published when there is no indictment. Mueller engaged in the same mischief that his buddy Comey did. Then he leaked the letter just before the Barr hearing. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1    3 weeks ago

MUELLER CALLED BARR AND ALSO SENT A LETTER.

BARR IS A LYING SACK OF SHIT LIKE THE 'PRESIDENT'

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.1    3 weeks ago

Nope, Barr called Mueller when he got the letter.

What did he lie about?

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.2    3 weeks ago

Barr lied about EVERYTHING

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.3    3 weeks ago

You can't give me a simple example?  Tessy?

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.4    3 weeks ago

It is always easier to just throw a blanket over everything than to provide evidence.

 
 
 
Sunshine
6.1.6  Sunshine  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.4    3 weeks ago

Always all sqawk and no substance.

Kind of like the Democrats in Congress...lol

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6.1.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.5    3 weeks ago

I prefer enlightened debate. Currently, in our society we have civil debate, the use of slogans, smearing and black-clad protesters wearing masks & tossing rocks.

I think we accomplish something with debate

 
 
 
Snuffy
6.1.8  Snuffy  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.3    3 weeks ago

Everything is a fairly big indictment.  Can you provide any specifics?

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
7  Colour Me Free    3 weeks ago
Parsed carefully (which you have to do with the special counsel’s Jesuitical work), Mueller is precisely not saying that Barr misrepresented his key findings. He is saying that he and the Clinton/Obama minions he recruited to staff the case wrote the report with a certain mood music in mind. To their chagrin, Barr gave us just the no-crime bottom line. Mueller would have preferred for us to feel all the ooze of un-presidential escapades he couldn’t indict but wouldn’t, from his lofty perch, “exonerate.”

I do not know about Clinton/Obama minions or lofty perches .. etc ...  yet, after the release of the Mueller Report, Barr's [so called] summary is accurate, now said summaries 'interpretation' was not 'nuanced' to Mueller's liking so he sends a letter .. more or less suggesting that before one can say there was no 'charge' of obstruction, nor conclusion of obstruction one must read the Mueller report in a sing songy trance of what 'might' be possible … ?

Mueller may not 'exonerate' Trump, but he did not conclude the president obstructed justice, nor conclude there was conspiracy to collude with Russia either … I get the Benghazi'esque hearings are only beginning and as Benghazi, all dead horses will be repeatedly beaten to death .. when what the House needs to do is get on with the impeachment process or get on with the nations business .. for years now "we' have seen enough obstruction in Congress  - there is work to do on immigration, border security, health insurance and pharmaceutical costs, infrastructure .. the list goes on, and should not be allowed to once again, be kicked down the road!

Nail Trump when he leaves office... but, I get that doing so does not bring around the same level of vengeance that forcing him out of office would achieve  .. or so it seems.

 
 
 
Sunshine
7.1  Sunshine  replied to  Colour Me Free @7    3 weeks ago

Hi Colour - How is your back? 

Someone does need to look at the FISA application process.  If after two years of unlimited resources being used to reach a conclusion that no evidence was discovered that any American conspired with Russia, it is very concerning what "evidence" was used to obtain a FISA warrant.  Other than that, at this point I think we maybe throwing good money after bad.

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
7.1.1  Colour Me Free  replied to  Sunshine @7.1    3 weeks ago

Morning Sunshine … I am hanging in there, thank you for asking..

I agree.  The FISA warrants on Carter Page, I believe were illegally obtained, allowed to be renewed and this needs to be addressed.  Trump was the target and Page's 'connections' were going to provide the information .. according to the Steele Dossier? .. even though he was no longer part of the campaign, a fishing expedition in a lake that did not contain fish was launched!  The FBI has been aware of Page for years, and knew he was NO threat.

 
 
 
evilgenius
8  evilgenius    3 weeks ago
Special Counsel Mueller’s complaint, which targeted Attorney General Barr’s March 24 letter explaining the report, is not about the “key findings.” It’s about the narrative.

Barr made a mistake in his messaging of "The Report" setting up this split between his office and the Special Counsel's office. Had he simply said the Special Council offered no charges and he concurred he would look less like a jackass. Also repeating "no collusion" all the time is dumb and lowers himself down to the level of the media covering this circus. He's supposed to at least look like a lawyer and not an ass kissing politico.

We will hear the truth, whatever it may be, directly from Mueller very soon. I doubt it will stop the partisan bickering but at least I'll be able to get the scoop first hand. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
8.1  Sunshine  replied to  evilgenius @8    3 weeks ago
We will hear the truth,

What truth? The entire Mueller report is available to all congressional members.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Sunshine @8.1    3 weeks ago
What truth? The entire Mueller report is available to all congressional members.

Notice how much focus is on Barr now and not the actual Mueller Report?

Could that have anything to do with no findings of a conspiracy by Mueller?

No indictment of the President?

No indictment of Trump Jr.?

Now they are just pissed that they put all their eggs in Mueller's basket to see it wasted away!

 
 
 
It Is ME
8.1.2  It Is ME  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.1    3 weeks ago
Notice how much focus is on Barr now and not the actual Mueller Report?

The "Left" doesn't seem to talk much about the actual RUSSIA PROBLEM ! Just listening to the questions put forth (We will Degrade you Mr. Barr) in the Committee hearings, is telling.

That was NEVER their intention in the first place !

 
 
 
evilgenius
8.1.3  evilgenius  replied to  Sunshine @8.1    3 weeks ago
What truth?

The point of this partisan article vs calling out another partisan article. My point is I'll be able to hear the words from Mueller when he testifies before the House (looks like it might be) by the end of this month.

 
 
 
evilgenius
8.1.4  evilgenius  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.1    3 weeks ago
Notice how much focus is on Barr now and not the actual Mueller Report?

As I said Barr fucked himself trying to spin cover for Trump. He didn't need to do that. 

 
 
 
evilgenius
8.1.5  evilgenius  replied to  It Is ME @8.1.2    3 weeks ago
The "Left" doesn't seem to talk much about the actual RUSSIA PROBLEM !

According to Trump there is no Russia problem.

 
 
 
It Is ME
8.1.6  It Is ME  replied to  evilgenius @8.1.5    3 weeks ago

According to Democrats there is no Russia problem. It's all just about personal "Character attacks" now.

Was the Uber Special Dossier a Russian Ploy ?

Enquiring minds want to know (leaves out Liberals huh)!

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  evilgenius @8.1.4    3 weeks ago

Congress has the whole Mueller Report.

Impeachment any time soon?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.8  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  evilgenius @8.1.3    3 weeks ago
I'll be able to hear the words from Mueller when he testifies before the House (looks like it might be) by the end of this month.

But even then, it won't end there, will it?  No matter what he says.

Remember when we heard "I'll wait for the Mueller Report"?

He tried his best for ya, but it seems Peter Strzok was right from the beginning "There's no there there"

 
 
 
evilgenius
8.1.9  evilgenius  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.7    3 weeks ago
Impeachment any time soon?

Perhaps, but I would advise against it. It certainly backfired on the Republicans last time they tried it.

 
 
 
evilgenius
8.1.10  evilgenius  replied to  It Is ME @8.1.6    3 weeks ago
Was the Uber Special Dossier a Russian Ploy ?

Idk - was the many conversations with the Russians talking to Carter Page prior to the Uber Special Dossier a Russian Ploy?

 
 
 
Sunshine
8.1.11  Sunshine  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.8    3 weeks ago
But even then, it won't end there, will it?

No...then the smearing of Mueller will begin.

 
 
 
It Is ME
8.1.12  It Is ME  replied to  evilgenius @8.1.10    3 weeks ago
Idk - was the many conversations with the Russians talking to Carter Page prior to the Uber Special Dossier a Russian Ploy?

IDK. Barr and our "Justice" Department, needs to look into everything....wouldn't you think ?

Apparently, 2 years and millions of dollars....didn't answer any questions ?

 
 
 
evilgenius
8.1.13  evilgenius  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.8    3 weeks ago
But even then, it won't end there, will it?  No matter what he says.

I said as much in my original post. I can't control what others do. Shouting at my screen hasn't helped either. I'm a realist and I see assholes everywhere. I'd wish more people would at least try to look less assholish, but these days many wear it as a badge of honor. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
8.1.14  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.7    3 weeks ago
Congress has the whole Mueller Report. Impeachment any time soon?

Considering a Republican controlled congress impeached a President for lying about a blow job and "obstructing justice" by telling the consenting adult he had an affair with to lie to investigators, the mountain of lies and obvious obstruction demands impeachment. In Trumps case we have 10 clear counts of obstruction along with a dereliction of duty by failing to respond to the very real threat imposed by the continued Russian attacks on our elections.

However, I understand Democrats hesitance. If they impeach now and the Republican Senate confirms the impeachment, we get Pence for the last year and a half leading up to Pence being the incumbent. If they impeach and the vote fails they have egg on their face. And if they impeach and it passes Congress but gets killed in the Senate then again, egg on face, though with some credibility to their base for at least having done their jobs.

If it were up to me, I would recommend a vote of censure in congress, letting America know that the Presidents unethical and possibly criminal behavior will not be tolerated. Then they can work at really bringing the nation together from the middle, let the extremists on either side get metaphorically blown away like so much chaff from the wheat, and then coalesce behind a centrist candidate that embraces diversity and equality while also reassuring some fearful conservatives that diversity means them too, that they are an integral part of our society making the whole worth more than the sum of its parts. Then we will bring this tragic time in American politics to a close and no doubt will vociferously declare never to elect such a monumental incompetent to the highest office in the land again.

 
 
 
evilgenius
8.1.15  evilgenius  replied to  It Is ME @8.1.12    3 weeks ago
Barr and our "Justice" Department, needs to look into everything....wouldn't you think ?

I don't see a vast deep state conspiracy if that's what you're asking. On the other hand I've been asking for more transparency on the FISA court since the original Patriot Act was conceived. 

Apparently, 2 years and millions of dollars....didn't answer any questions ?

Trump and his people don't exactly come out smelling all roses. It may not rise to level of criminal, but it's certainly not something to be proud of.

 
 
 
evilgenius
8.1.16  evilgenius  replied to  Sunshine @8.1.11    3 weeks ago
No...then the smearing of Mueller will begin.

Begin? The right has been doing this for 2 years already! LMAO!

 
 
 
Sunshine
8.1.17  Sunshine  replied to  evilgenius @8.1.3    3 weeks ago
The point of this partisan article vs calling out another partisan article. My point is I'll be able to hear the words from Mueller when he testifies before the House (looks like it might be) by the end of this month.

A 400 page report including executive summaries is not enough of Mueller's words.

Time to stop the nonsense and the redundant complaints and move forward. Yet, Democrats want to continue dividing the country with their antics.

 
 
 
Sunshine
8.1.18  Sunshine  replied to  evilgenius @8.1.16    3 weeks ago
Begin? The right has been doing this for 2 years already! LMAO!

What Republican leader has?  

But the claws are out for the Democrat leaders smearing Barr.

 
 
 
It Is ME
8.1.19  It Is ME  replied to  evilgenius @8.1.15    3 weeks ago
I don't see a vast deep state conspiracy if that's what you're asking.

Nope....nothing on my part about a "Deep State". I do find it funny how "Politicians" love to spy on,  and investigate themselves though. Makes one wonder if "Deep State' isn't really a True happening ….. doesn't it ?

I don't find that ANY "Politician" smells any better than Cow Shit in an open field at "High Noon" !

"It may not rise to level of criminal, but it's certainly not something to be proud of."

There's your sign. jrSmiley_27_smiley_image.gif

That's been the entire narrative of the "left" in congress. Take Senator Hirono's Drawn out Narrative and questioning of Barr.....PLEASE ……… TAKE IT out to the Trash !

 
 
 
evilgenius
8.1.20  evilgenius  replied to  Sunshine @8.1.18    3 weeks ago
What Republican leader has?  

We can start at the top with Trump.

 
 
 
evilgenius
8.1.21  evilgenius  replied to  Sunshine @8.1.17    3 weeks ago
A 400 page report including executive summaries is not enough of Mueller's words.

This seeded post is about the memo from Mueller to Barr. Let's stay on topic.

Time to stop the nonsense and the redundant complaints and move forward. Yet, Democrats want to continue dividing the country with their antics.

I don't think it will stop the Democrats. It didn't stop the Republicans during the Clinton nor the Obama years. It's not even going to stop the Republicans now as they are calling for investigations into everything they can as well. It's two ring circus right now.

 
 
 
Sunshine
8.1.22  Sunshine  replied to  evilgenius @8.1.20    3 weeks ago
We can start at the top with Trump.

What did he say?  

Actually Trump praised Mueller for his work.

 
 
 
Ronin2
8.1.23  Ronin2  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @8.1.14    3 weeks ago
Considering a Republican controlled congress impeached a President for lying about a blow job and "obstructing justice" by telling the consenting adult he had an affair with to lie to investigators,

Damn, get it right- Clinton was impeached for lying under oath in a court of law, not to investigators.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/this-day-in-politics-aug-17-1998-226998

Clinton denied under oath that he had engaged in sexual relations with Lewinsky. That testimony led Starr to accuse the president of perjury and obstruction of justice, which in turn prompted his grand jury appearance.

When Clinton testified, he knew Lewinsky was talking to Starr’s prosecutors, and he knew his DNA could match a semen stain on her blue dress. Faced with those facts, the president could have invoked the Fifth Amendment, refusing to incriminate himself before the grand jury.

Instead, according to Starr, he continued to lie.

You get Trump to lie under oath, then by all means the Dems need to impeach away. I will support them wholeheartedly.  Then the Republicans can have a gathering on the White House lawn in support of Trump; and look just as asinine as the Democrats did.

   

 
 
 
evilgenius
8.1.24  evilgenius  replied to  Sunshine @8.1.22    3 weeks ago

A day after Mueller’s team said that Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman, had breached a plea agreement and repeatedly lied to them, Trump attacked Mueller as a “conflicted prosecutor gone rogue.

Barr even farted something about this line of Trump wanting to remove Mueller under having a conflict of interest saying it would be legal whether there was a actual conflict or not.

 
 
 
Sunshine
8.1.25  Sunshine  replied to  evilgenius @8.1.24    3 weeks ago

Stating someone has a conflict of interest is not smearing a person's character.  You need to learn from Democrat leader Ms Hirono what smearing is.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2019/05/01/lindsey-graham-slams-senator-hirono-for-smearing-barr-from-top-to-bottom-n2545710

Mazie Hirono said the gang rape allegations against Kavanaugh manufactured by Michael Avenatti were "credible," so you know her judgement is
Matt Wolking

@MattWolking
Replying to @MZHemingway and 3 others
Senator Mazie Hirono called Julie Swetnick's insane gang rape allegations "credible," and Senate Judiciary Democrats spread that description.

 
 
 
Dulay
8.1.26  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @8.1.23    3 weeks ago
Damn, get it right- Clinton was impeached for lying under oath in a court of law, not to investigators.

FALSE. Clinton lied in a DEPOSITION, not in a 'court of law'. 

Damn, get it right. 

 
 
 
evilgenius
8.1.27  evilgenius  replied to  Ronin2 @8.1.23    3 weeks ago
Clinton was impeached for lying under oath...

Republicans were desperately looking for any excuse to investigate the Clintons. Kenn Starr got involved after the DoJ had worked on Whitewater for 2 years and didn't find anything. After 3 MORE YEARS Starr was about to give up when Linda Tripp dropped the Lewinsky taped conversation in his lap. Nothing on that tape was criminal - Unethical and sleazy yes, criminal no.

You get Trump to lie under oath...

Trump's lawyers won't let him testify under oath because they know he can't tell the truth.

 
 
 
evilgenius
8.1.28  evilgenius  replied to  Sunshine @8.1.25    3 weeks ago
Stating someone has a conflict of interest is not smearing a person's character. 

Please stop being obtuse. It is a smear when you know they don't have a conflict of interest. It's why Trump's lawyer wouldn't go through with the proposed firing.

 
 
 
Dulay
8.1.29  Dulay  replied to  Sunshine @8.1.25    3 weeks ago
Stating someone has a conflict of interest is not smearing a person's character. 

Stating that a Special Counsel has a conflict of interest, AFTER being advised multiple times that none of his fabricated allegations met the definition, can ONLY be viewed as an attempt to smear his character. 

The FACT that Trump ordered McGahn to tell Rosenstein that those fabricated allegations were CAUSE for removal bolsters that conclusion. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
8.1.30  Sunshine  replied to  evilgenius @8.1.28    3 weeks ago
It is a smear when you know they don't have a conflict of interest.  

There is nothing demeaning about a person having a conflict of interest.  It happens quite frequent.  I suggest you find another example of all this smearing of Mueller by Trump, or any other Republican leader.

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.1.31  Tessylo  replied to  evilgenius @8.1.27    3 weeks ago

After 3 MORE YEARS Starr was about to give up when Linda Tripp dropped the Lewinsky taped conversation in his lap. Nothing on that tape was criminal - Unethical and sleazy yes, criminal no.

https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/linda-tripp-monica-lewinsky-cold-opening/n11077

 
 
 
lib50
8.1.32  lib50  replied to  Sunshine @8.1.30    3 weeks ago

Ok forget conflict of interest.  Trump is LYING, which actually happens more than frequently.  He lies about Mueller being a democrat.    It happens daily. Trump committed obstruction by trying to get McGahn to lie about his (Trump's) lie over obstruction when he asked McGahn to fire Mueller.  Mueller has been entirely honest and professional in his duty, anything to the contrary is a lie.  Trump and republicans are currently lying about what Mueller's report says, instead keeping with Barr's false summary.   Here is a fun read.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trumps-smear-of-mueller-report-is-a-country-over-party-moment-for-republicans-2019-04-25

 
 
 
Sunshine
8.1.33  Sunshine  replied to  lib50 @8.1.32    3 weeks ago

Trump praised Mueller several times.

The desperate narrative of these comments is sad.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

Andrew McCarthy is best known for being an Islamophobe, but that is for another day.

The present article is borderline ridiculous, which is a low place for a former federal prosecutor to have fallen. 

One of McCarthy's major points is that if Mueller really disagreed with Barr's 4 page summary he would have said something. 

According to the Mueller letter to Barr, (not McCarthy's spin of it), Mueller's office contacted Barr on Mar. 25, the day after Barr put forth his 4 page summary of the full Mueller report, in order to state concerns about how the Barr substance conveyed the full report. One day after Barr gave his summary he was contacted by Mueller with concerns. 

McCarthy also says that the Mueller letter doesnt claim that Barr misrepresented anything, but the quickest most cursory reading of the letter belies that assertion.  The Mueller letter to Barr clearly states that the Barr summary does not convey the full "context" "nature" and  "substance" of the report, as well as it's "conclusions". 

One has to be willfully deceitful to claim that the Mueller letter does not say that the Barr summary misrepresented the report. One could argue to what degree it misrepresented it, but one cannot honestly argue that it misrepresented it, according to the Mueller letter. 

Sean seems to think Andrew Mccarthy is some sort of last word on this, but it is much more obvious that this conservative beacon simply emabarrssed himself with this column. 

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. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25.

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.2  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @9    3 weeks ago

Do you know what "fully" means?

ful·ly
[ˈfo͝olē]

ADVERB
completely or entirely; to the furthest extent.
"I fully understand the fears of the workers"
synonyms:
completely · entirely · wholly · totally · thoroughly · quite · utterly · [more]
no less or fewer than (used to emphasize an amount).
"fully 65 percent of all funerals are by cremation"

Fact is Congress HAS the whole Mueller Report.

Where are the articles of impeachment?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @9.2    3 weeks ago

If I answer you properly it will be deleted, so I am required to let you continue to misinform this forum. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @9.2.1    3 weeks ago

If you are incapable of forming a reply within the C of C, then that is a failure on your part.

Not mine.

Where ARE those articles of impeachment, John?

Why the delay?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9.2.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @9.2.2    3 weeks ago

My comment does not mention impeachment. You are tongue tied as to my actual comment, so you said something irrelevant. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.2.4  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @9.2.3    3 weeks ago

After we have heard for over 2 years how the great Mueller Report was going to do for Democrats what they couldn't do for themselves--get rid of Trump, I would expect no delays in impeachment.

No one is tongue-tying you. Don't use that as a poor excuse.

 
 
 
Dulay
9.2.5  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @9.2    3 weeks ago
Fact is Congress HAS the whole Mueller Report.

False. The Congress HAS the same REDACTED report that we have. Barr just informed Congress that he will NOT release the WHOLE report to Congress. 

 
 
 
lib50
9.2.6  lib50  replied to  JohnRussell @9.2.3    3 weeks ago
You are tongue tied as to my actual comment, so you said something irrelevant.

Favorite trick, change to comment to what he wants so no need to actually address it.  Yet another squirrel moment. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.2.7  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @9.2.6    3 weeks ago
Favorite trick, change to comment to what he wants so no need to actually address it. Yet another squirrel moment.

No trick, but isn't it special you think so?

 
 
 
bugsy
9.2.8  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @9.2.2    3 weeks ago

[delete]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9.2.9  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @9.2.2    3 weeks ago

Bugsy is confused. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9.3  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @9    3 weeks ago

Obviously, obviously, obviously, Mueller and his team disagreed with the Mar 24 Barr 4 page summary.  We can KNOW this because they sent Barr a message the NEXT DAY indicating so. 

March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25.

That is the EXACT text of the Mueller letter. 

It has now been two days since the Mueller letter leaked. If media interpretations of this letter that besmirch Barr are inaccurate, how come Mueller hasn't corrected them?  When he thought Barr had misrepresented the full nature of full report, he said something (to Barr) the next day. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.3.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @9.3    3 weeks ago

Who gives a flying rat's ass?

Congress HAS their whole report.

Where are the articles of impeachment, John?

Where, oh where?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
9.3.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @9.3    3 weeks ago
Obviously, obviously, obviously, Mueller and his team disagreed with the Mar 24 Barr 4 page summary.

John, listen:

FUCK MUELLER AND HIS TEAM

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9.3.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @9.3.1    3 weeks ago

trolling

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9.3.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.3.2    3 weeks ago

more trolling

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
9.3.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @9.3.4    3 weeks ago

Why not respond to the facts? 

What Barr said was accurate. No conspiracy, No obstruction. That was about all Barr dealt with. Then he graciously released the report.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9.3.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.3.5    3 weeks ago

The day after Barr released his summary Mueller told Barr of his concerns with how the summary represented the full report.  Mueller asked Barr to release the executive summaries from the report. To be blunt, Barr refused to have the report be represented to the public the way the author of the report wanted it to.  Barr chose to characterize the report in a way that helped Trump claim "complete exoneration". If Trump is "innocent", why didnt Barr release the executive summaries on Mar 25, the way Mueller had explicitly asked him to? 

 
 
 
katrix
9.3.7  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.3.5    3 weeks ago

The report clearly shows obstruction.  However, Mueller made it clear that Congress should be the ones to deal with it, since DOJ policy is to not indict a sitting President.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
9.3.8  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @9.3.6    3 weeks ago
The day after Barr released his summary Mueller told Barr of his concerns with how the summary represented the full report.  Mueller asked Barr to release the executive summaries from the report.

Barr did release the executive summaries with the entire report after the required redactions were made. It was released together. If Mueller wanted the executive summaries released quicker, why didn't he help with the redactions as Barr asked. The reason it took three weeks is because the Mueller gang was needed in that effort and they didn't act when Barr asked them to.

 Barr chose to characterize the report in a way that helped Trump claim "complete exoneration". If Trump is "innocent", why didnt Barr release the executive summaries on Mar 25, the way Mueller had explicitly asked him to? 

Iv'e already answered that. First of all Trump was never charged, and innocence is presumed in our system of justice, remember? Mueller who couldn't take out the President legally, is depending on democrats to keep the narrative going and continuing the harassment of Trump right up until the end of his term.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
9.3.9  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @9.3.7    3 weeks ago
The report clearly shows obstruction. 

If you believe that, why wasn't the charge made?


However, Mueller made it clear that Congress should be the ones to deal with it

He obviously waited for dems to take over the House to end his "investigation", however our legal system dosen't work that way. The AG decides. This AG is honest. Eric Holder & Loretta Lynch were not.

 
 
 
Tacos!
9.3.10  Tacos!  replied to  katrix @9.3.7    3 weeks ago
The report clearly shows obstruction.

If it were clear, Mueller would have said so. He didn't.

 
 
 
Tacos!
9.3.11  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @9.3    3 weeks ago
Mueller and his team disagreed with the Mar 24 Barr 4 page summary

The letter does not say that.

did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions

A 4-page letter could not achieve all of that, nor was it meant to.

 
 
 
katrix
9.3.12  katrix  replied to  Tacos! @9.3.10    3 weeks ago

Did you even read it?  Mueller clearly stated why he didn't say so.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9.3.13  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.3.8    3 weeks ago
Barr chose to characterize the report in a way that helped Trump claim "complete exoneration". If Trump is "innocent", why didnt Barr release the executive summaries on Mar 25, the way Mueller had explicitly asked him to? Iv'e already answered that. First of all Trump was never charged, and innocence is presumed in our system of justice, remember?

This makes very little sense. If the fact that Trump wasnt charged was a reason for withholding the executive summaries , the entire report never would have been released. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9.3.14  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @9.3.11    3 weeks ago
The letter does not say that.

Mueller's objection to the Barr summary is in his letter. He wanted the executive summaries from the report released in order to correct the mis-impression given by the Barr summary. It is completely clear from the text of the letter. I have posted the relevant parts four or five times already on this forum and am not going to do it again. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
9.3.15  Tacos!  replied to  katrix @9.3.12    3 weeks ago
Did you even read it?

It does not contain the words "President Trump obstructed justice." That would be clear.

 
 
 
Sunshine
9.3.16  Sunshine  replied to  katrix @9.3.12    3 weeks ago
Mueller clearly stated why he didn't say so.

He did, where?

 
 
 
Tacos!
9.3.17  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @9.3.14    3 weeks ago
in order to correct the mis-impression given by the Barr summary

Actually he does not make a cause and effect connection in his letter. That is, he does not say that the mistaken impressions were caused by Barr's letter. He simply says the problem exists. He places no blame. What he suggests in the letter is that releasing certain material could help clear up those mistaken impressions.

Of course at this point, the whole thing (minus some redactions) has been released and the point is now moot.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
9.3.18  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @9.3.13    3 weeks ago
This makes very little sense.

Not from where your'e sitting. Remember that you once said that you didn't think Trump colluded but you hoped they would get him on something. That's why it's not making sense, even though Barr released the entire report.

 If the fact that Trump wasnt charged was a reason for withholding the executive summaries 

WOW!  No, that isn't what I said or implied. Barr released the executive summaries WITH the report!  That would make sense!!!  Why should the executive summaries be released when Barr is merely stating the results of the investigation?   Simply because Mueller wants to put Trump in a negative light?

the entire report never would have been released. 

IT DIDN'T HAVE TO BE RELEASED!!! You can thank Mr Barr for that


 
 
 
JohnRussell
9.3.19  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @9.3.17    3 weeks ago
That is, he does not say that the mistaken impressions were caused by Barr's letter. He simply says the problem exists. He places no blame.
-
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. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is new public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation.
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
9.3.20  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @9.3.19    3 weeks ago

You keep repeating it John, over & over.  You have all of it! What is your point?

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.3.21  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.3.20    3 weeks ago

Well, the point. Hmmmm.

Maybe the dead horse some were beating for 2+ years is finally used all up?

Why NOT go after Barr when they refuse to impeach Trump?

Gots to keep everyone riled up about SOMETHING or other, right?

 
 
 
lib50
9.3.22  lib50  replied to  Texan1211 @9.3.21    3 weeks ago

How an investigation that lead to multiple indictments, pleas, trials and jail not be something?  Explain how these people should be allowed to get away with crimes?  More crimes are currently being incubated in state courts!  Seems like a lot of something to me.  (ps, last line is hilarious Trump projection)

https://www.axios.com/mueller-russia-investigation-timeline-indictments-70433acd-9ef7-424d-aa01-b962ae5c9647.html

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/barr-hearing-mueller-investigation-indictments.html

When Attorney General William Barr appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday to testify about special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, Republican Sen. Mike Hawley characterized it as an attempt to “overturn the results of a democratic election.” Sen. Lindsey Graham said, “When the Mueller report is put to bed, and it soon will be, this committee is going to look long and hard on how this all started.” And Sen. Mike Lee’s line of questioning suggested that he believes the foundations of the investigation were too flimsy and motivated by political bias. In their attempts to discredit the investigation, those characterizations essentially ignored what the special counsel has already accomplished: uncovering an assortment of crimes committed by dozens of people, including Trump campaign advisers. In case Republicans on the committee—or anyone else—need to be reminded, here’s a rundown of the indictments against 34 people and three companies achieved by the special counsel, many of which have led to guilty pleas:
 
 
 
Texan1211
9.3.23  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @9.3.22    3 weeks ago

Please don't do this with me.

How an investigation that lead to multiple indictments, pleas, trials and jail not be something?

I didn't say it was nothing. Please don't attempt to put words in my mouth and debate what you put there.

Explain how these people should be allowed to get away with crimes?

Again, (sigh*), I never said anything of the sort.

More crimes are currently being incubated in state courts!

I will address that when I see indictments. Do you have some to show me?

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
9.3.24  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Texan1211 @9.3.21    3 weeks ago
Maybe the dead horse some were beating for 2+ years is finally used all up?

yepp.

512

 
 
 
lib50
9.3.25  lib50  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.3.5    3 weeks ago
Why not respond to the facts? 

Barr is NOT putting out facts, he is putting out spin to protect Trump.  So much that Mueller publicly called him out on his misrepresentations.  Nothing honest or gracious about Barr, he is lying like Trump,   and not working for the country at all.   The Mueller report specifically give examples of team Trump's contacts and lies about Russia.  It also specifically gave examples of obstruction and left it to congress to decide, their constitutional job.  Which requires the full report.  Trump is not above the law, it will catch up with him and everybody he sucks into his dark hole.

 
 
 
It Is ME
9.3.26  It Is ME  replied to  lib50 @9.3.25    3 weeks ago
So much that Mueller publicly called him out on his misrepresentations. 

Based on the Mueller letter, the concern was about not putting out enough of what Mueller now thinks should have been put out. Nothing more, nothing less. 

Maybe Mueller should have put out a better more concise Report, instead of chucking out a few sentences here and there, that makes people, the media, and congress wonder ….… "WTF does that mean" !

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
9.3.27  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.3.8    3 weeks ago
Barr did release the executive summaries with the entire report after the required redactions were made.

Conservative Republicans were furious at what they perceived as President Obama trying to downplay a terrorist attack months before an election. Sure, Obama called it a terrorist attack the day after Benghazi, but that didn't stop dishonest Republicans for claiming he was trying to change the narrative for political benefit.

Here we have Trumps hand picked AG who comes out with a false narrative clearly not representative of the report that attempts to establish a conclusion for over three weeks before the facts come out showing a completely different scenario in an effort to shield an incumbent President just before an election year.

Could you imagine if there was a letter from one of the Benghazi investigators that was sent to Susan Rice after her announcement that said "Not only are you wrong about the YouTube Video having anything to do with this attack, but our investigation does not exonerate Hillary Clinton and your press release “did not fully capture the context” “nature and substance” of our investigation." Republicans would have gone ape shit and you know it.

 
 
 
lib50
9.3.28  lib50  replied to  Texan1211 @9.3.23    3 weeks ago
Maybe the dead horse some were beating for 2+ years is finally used all up?

If 'beating a dead horse' doesn't imply nothing, wtf does it imply? 

Why NOT go after Barr when they refuse to impeach Trump?

I'm sure Barr will meet the law at some point.  As for Trump, that too will come.  Not on your timetable, not on Trump's timetable.  Conservatives sure seem obsessed about it though. 

Gots to keep everyone riled up about SOMETHING or other, right?

Trump loves chaos, so is it a mystery a lot of folk are riled up?  Try addressing what is riling people up in this case.  If you put Hillary in there instead of Trump it might be easier to overcome that ideology.

I will address that when I see indictments. Do you have some to show me?

Cases have been referred, be patient and you shall be rewarded with indictments.  Thought you might want to be prepared, but your choice if not.  More past and future:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/breakdown-indictments-cases-muellers-probe/story?id=61219489

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-investigations-expla/explainer-why-trumps-legal-woes-go-beyond-the-mueller-report-idUSKCN1R32SZ

These investigations, pursued by prosecutors at the federal and state level, could result in charges beyond those brought in Mueller’s investigation or civil liability. The special counsel on Friday submitted his confidential report on the investigation to U.S. Attorney General William Barr, who must decide on how much of it to make public. The U.S. Justice Department has a decades-old policy that a sitting president cannot face criminal charges, so such a case against Trump would be unlikely while he is in office even if there were evidence of wrongdoing. Some legal experts have argued the department is wrong and that a president is not immune from prosecution. Either way, Trump potentially could face charges once he is out of office.

Read on for more.   Pretty sure you don't want me to post the whole thing.  But I'm happy to do so.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
9.3.29  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.3.27    3 weeks ago

Sure, Obama called it a terrorist attack the day after Bengha

No he didn’t.  

who comes out with a false narrative clearly not representative of the report that attempts to establish a conclusion \

The conclusions Barr reported were 100% accurate. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
9.3.30  Sunshine  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.3.27    3 weeks ago
Here we have Trumps hand picked AG

What AG isn't...he was confirmed by Congress...stop with the drama and regurgitated talking points.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
9.3.31  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.3.29    3 weeks ago
No he didn’t.  

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done." - President Obama the day after the Benghazi attack

"The conclusions Barr reported were 100% accurate."

No, it wasn't. It was misleading and insufficient at best and “did not fully capture the context” “nature and substance” of the report.

Context: noun - the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.

Substance: noun - the real physical matter of which a person or thing consists and which has a tangible, solid presence.

Nature: noun - the basic or inherent features of something, especially when seen as characteristic of it.

Seem's like if you leave those things out, all you're left with is a lot of hot air.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
9.3.32  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sunshine @9.3.30    3 weeks ago
he was confirmed by Congress

No, he wasn't. The confirmation process goes through the Senate, not the Congress.

 
 
 
Dulay
9.3.33  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.3.29    3 weeks ago
No he didn’t.

 
 
 
Tacos!
9.3.34  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @9.3.19    3 weeks ago

Your quote does not contradict what I wrote. Think about it.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
9.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @9    3 weeks ago
Andrew McCarthy is best known for being an Islamophobe

Why is that John?  Because he was helped prosecute the 1993 terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center?

McCarthy also says that the Mueller letter doesnt claim that Barr misrepresented anything, but the quickest most cursory reading of the letter belies that assertion.  The Mueller letter to Barr clearly states that the Barr summary does not convey the full "context" "nature" and  "summary" of the report, as well as it's "conclusions". 

Not conveying the full context & nature of the report does not dispute the accuracy of what Barr said. Barr merely gave the bottom line - No indictments of the President! The context & nature of the balance of Mueller's report is a smear job of Trump.

One has to be willfully deceitful to claim that the Mueller letter does not say that the Barr summary misrepresented the report. One could argue to what degree it misrepresented it, but one cannot honestly argue that it misrepresented it, according to the Mueller letter. 

One has to be an absolute liar to dispute that Barr's letter (NOT A SUMMARY) simply stated the two essential results of the report - No Conspiracy & No obstruction.  You now have the entire report. You can run with all the breadcrumbs that the biased disreputable Mueller has left for you.

Sean seems to think Andrew Mccarthy is some sort of last word on this, but it is much more obvious that this conservative beacon simply emabarrssed himself with this column. 

Embarrass? Not on his worst day

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9.4.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.4    3 weeks ago
One has to be an absolute liar to dispute that Barr's letter (NOT A SUMMARY) simply stated the two essential results of the report - No Conspiracy & No obstruction.

If the Mar 24 Barr summary was completely forthcoming , why did Mueller send him a message the next day saying the Barr summary was not conveying the full nature of the Mueller report? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
9.4.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @9.4.1    3 weeks ago
If the Mar 24 Barr summary was completely forthcoming ,

First, it wasn't a summary. It contained only two facts: No conspiracy, No obstruction.

why did Mueller send him a message the next day saying the Barr summary was not conveying the full nature of the Mueller report? 

Because Mueller & his gang wanted all those conversations Trump had about replacing the conflicted Mueller to be mentioned. Are we gonna pretend that Mueller was somehow unbiased?

I ask you, then, since the report is out, what else was there?

Better question: How long did it take Mueller to figure out Trump didn't conspire with Russia?

 
 
 
Dulay
9.4.3  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.4    3 weeks ago
One has to be an absolute liar to dispute that Barr's letter (NOT A SUMMARY) simply stated the two essential results of the report - No Conspiracy & No obstruction.

Then what is y'all aversion to Barr's letter being labeled a 'summary'? 

Summary:

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

The irony is that Andy decries Mueller using 14 pages in the Statement of Charges when he claims ONE paragraph would have been enough. Yet Andy gives Barr a pass for using 4 pages for 4 words: 'No Conspiracy & No obstruction'. 

You now have the entire report. 

No one outside of the DOJ and the WH has the 'entire report'. 

You can run with all the breadcrumbs that the biased disreputable Mueller has left for you.

Well gee Vic, if the 'biased disreputable Mueller' stated 'No Conspiracy & No obstruction' why should anyone  believe it? 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
10  Dismayed Patriot    3 weeks ago
"Mueller’s complaint is that Barr “did not fully capture the context” of Mueller’s magnum opus – the “nature and substance” of the report"

It would be like the builders of the Lusitania asking their attorney Mr. Barr to announce the completion of their new luxury cruise liner and the attorney comes out before the people at the press conference and says "John Brown & Company have just finished building a boat. Thank you, I'll not be answering any questions". Then the builders call their attorney in and say "What the hell was that?" to which Mr. Barr replies, "Did I say something that wasn't true? Did I lie to anyone?". "No Mr. Barr, you did not lie, you just completely failed to capture the context, nature and substance of our new luxury liner. Based on your proclamation people think we just finished a dingy so much of the crowd turned away. The only reason we can think of for you to sabotage us like that is if you have some vested interest in our investors and customers walking away". "Nope, no conflict here. Sure, I've worked for Harland and Wolff and wrote them a 19 page letter telling them why the Titanic is superior to the Lusitania, and consider them family and they hinted at big rewards if the Lusitania launch went poorly and you guys were ruined, but that's not a conflict, is it? And remember, I didn't lie did I, he he, hehe...".

 
 
 
evilgenius
10.1  evilgenius  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @10    3 weeks ago

That's funny. Oddly apt, but funny!

 
 
 
Tacos!
11  Tacos!    3 weeks 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

Well, I think we can all sympathize with that emotion. The media's stock-in-trade is misinterpreting things for the purpose of dramatic headlines and promoting a leftist political agenda. I'm sure it's very frustrating for a lot of people. In fact, this isn't even the first time Mueller has been driven to speak up because the media was getting something wrong about his investigation.

Mueller Statement Disputes Report That Trump Directed Cohen to Lie

“BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the special counsel’s office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s congressional testimony are not accurate,”
 
 
 
Dulay
12  Dulay    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

[Please in the future flag the article and write down why.

 
 
 
Dulay
12.1  Dulay  replied to  Dulay @12    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

[Please take to "Metafied"]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
13  seeder  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

Thanks to those who kept it civil.

Back Monday, have a good weekend.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Greg Jones
Kavika
Texan1211
Bob Nelson
Dulay
Freefaller
Freedom Warrior


45 visitors