Mueller and his team had prepared summaries of both volumes that were available to Barr for release at the time that he made his own "conclusions". 

Why in the world would anyone want Barr's summaries when Mueller's summaries were available? 

Well, Trump wanted Barr's summaries, so that tells you a lot. 

What happened here is very clear. The Mueller summaries were not "positive" enough about Trump, so Barr decided to make sure that the first spin was good for the president*. 

It was essentially a sham, and anyone with clear eyed observation knows this. 

Everything the AG did upon receipt of the Mueller report was above board, open, transparent, and legal.  It’s time for the tantrum to end and for the investigations into the spying on the Trump campaign to begin.  

[deleted]

Loyalty is an admirable quality, but, as demonstrated in the Nuremberg trial it is not an excuse for WAR CRIME.

At this moment in time, we have a CRIMINAL in the WH, with a lifetime of illegal activities, including "Money Laundering" for Russia, the Drug Cartel in Panama, and, the Russian Mafia.

These are not baseless accusations. These are the facts that are coming to light from the detail in the Mueller Report and, as a result, of countless reporters working diligently to EXPOSE this RAT!

Did Mueller actually complain about Barr's conclusions?  No.  He did not.  That is the bottom line here.  Barr's conclusions were accurate and Mueller did not complain about them, he only complained about the context.  Also, remember, Mueller doesn't have final say on what can and will be summarized, Barr does as AG.  And, Barr was working with Rod Rosenstein, WHOM WAS THE PERSON THAT APPOINTED AND SUPERVISED MUELLER, to determine what could be released.  So, in reality, the complaints over the summary are nothing more than a tantrum of kids whom did not get that chocolate bar at the checkout stand.

That is the bottom line here.  Barr's conclusions were accurate and Mueller did not complain about them, he only complained about the context. 

He did not "only" complain about the context. I read the letter and quoted it here multiple times. Mueller specifically said that the Barr summary did not capture the full context, (or) nature (or) substance of the full report and it's conclusions.

Have you read the letter? I wonder , because you are misrepresenting it.  

er specifically said that the Barr summary did not capture the full context, (or) nature (or) substance of the full report and it's conclusions.

What conclusion did Barr misrepresent? Specifically?  

Poor Dems are upset their preferred spin attacking Trump wasn't distributed.  That's all this  is, whining about their preferred narrative. 

 They can't do anything with the actual facts in the report, so they have to gin up something to be hysterical about. Might as well be an accurate statement about Barr's conclusions of a report that was released to the public. 

I have been over all this with you multiple times. 

Even quoting the exact text of the letter didnt help you, so I guess it can't be helped. 

A summary doesn't give anything about the context, nature, or substance of any conclusion.  THAT is what you seem to be ignoring.  The summary is the boiled-down end-of-the-line conclusions of a report, where you can get just the outcome.  Mueller did not complain about the outcome that Barr stated, he complained about all the details being left out that is what context, nature, and substance are.  Summaries are not supposed to contain any of those things, otherwise, it is like complaining about the synopsis of "The Hobbit" leaving out how Bilbo got to The Lonely Mountain and outwitted Smaug to get hold of the Arkenstone.

'Have you read the letter? I wonder , because you are misrepresenting it.'

Just like Barr did.    

John - Mueller complained to Barr, on the phone, that he didn't like that the MEDIA has/had issues with NOT being able to support their stories.

Sorry - BS is in the field.

This whole thing is about publicity for the media.  Notice that they haven't POUNCED on the 447 page document and written stories on the document.  All they have done is bitch and moan and groan about the fact that THEY have nothing to write about.

did not capture the full context, (or) nature (or) substance of the full report and it's conclusions.

So explain to us about the context, nature, and substance of the full report, and how its conclusions differed from the summary.

Mueller held a 9 minute Press Conference on the day he officially resigned that clearly thumped its noses at Barr and Trump.

Both Trump and Barr are notorious LIARS, abusers of power, and, are using their offices to promote CORRUPTION!

It is beyond me to understand, how after all that has been revealed the criminality of Trump and his Criminal Organization, The Trump Organization, how any reasonable person might support him.

John Gotti, the NYC Killer, and Mafia head were idolized by millions of American, as was Jesse James, Billy The Kid, even Al Capone.

These are not the qualities that make a GREAT PRESIDENT. They are the stables of a DICTATOR.

The Mueller summaries were not "positive" enough about Trump

The summaries and the final report came to the same conclusions.

No collusion or obstruction....period!

Anything more is just a lot of childish whining and noisy crying, a collective temper tantrum if you will.

The description fits perfectly.

The description fits perfectly

It fits Trump perfectly. 

No collusion or obstruction....period!

You obviously did not read or understand the Mueller report.

The Democrats got the "Report", and they're still whining and Crying.

Why is that ?

Was it because it didn't include Shifty Schiff's definitive, irrevocable "Evidence" he's been saying he had for over 2 years ?

Whatever.  From the 'realm of the Trump', the general consensus is...……"Don't want anyone to say nothing and don't want anyone to see nothing." 

Remember the 'great excuse' for The Patriot Act crap?  "Got nothing to fear if you got nothing to hide."

Trump has the mind set of a two year old and has tantrums, yet the dems are supposedly a bunch of two year olds.

Trump acts like a teenager whom was asked to take out the garbage before dinner.  He grumbles and complains, but won't actually resist the request in the end.  And, can you describe the Democrats behavior better than as a two year old told they can't have the candy in the checkout lane and throwing a fit because of it regarding the Mueller report?

And, can you describe the Democrats behavior better than as a two year old told they can't have the candy in the checkout lane and throwing a fit because of it regarding the Mueller report?

The 2 y/o Dems have nothing on Trumps melt-downs when he can't have his way on anything. His own Tweet tantrums are a testament to that fact.

an immature idiot

Agreed. The more the Republicans try to denigrate the Democrats the more they highlight their own childish and immoral GOP leader who now sits in the Oval office. It really is pathetic. 

I have to wonder that, if Trump had run as a Democrat if the Republicans that now so ardently sing his praises as being sent by God would have still voted for him.

Big difference between tweeting something and just saying something and threatening impeachment over a letter that says that the SUMMARY did not show the full context of the report and then threatening contempt charges because the AG refused to let you have a 3rd party present to ask questions.

Trump SAYS things in frustration, but follows through with the law.  Democrats are saying things in frustration and demanding that the LAWS BE BROKEN to get what they want.  They want the FULL report UNREDACTED and are demanding it DESPITE THE LAW CLEARLY SAYING THEY ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR CERTAIN ITEMS like Grand Jury testimony, intelligence assets and reports, etc.

If Trump sent all of his ardent supporters a glass vase and told you that if you talked into that vase it would talk back to you, I can only assume that you would think it must be true. As it appears that no matter how inane or how big a lie he speaks, his supporters would believe it without question, jut as they do everything else that comes out of his mouth. 

The stupidity of saying that Trump says things just out of frustration is a total BS and an insult to the intelligent people in this world, who are tired of being kept in the dark about the corruption of this administration and those who are responsible for doing it.

If you want to talk to ignorant people, that is your right, but.......I ain't one of them. So go find someone who is willing to hold your hand in agreement with everything you say.

So, you support violating the law regarding the release of Grand Jury testimony, National Security Information, and investigative methodology in order to take down an elected official because you don't like him?  The Mueller report stated clearly that while Russia meddled in the elections, NOT A SINGLE AMERICAN WAS INVOLVED.  As for Obstruction of Justice, just contemplating actions does not make a case for it.  Watergate, which is the gold standard of corruption investigations, NEVER MENTIONED ANYONE NOT INDICTED.  Why did Mueller spend half his report mentioning and speculating about someone he did not indict (Trump)?  Bruce Fein was on The Daily Ledger tonight, and his issue was that Mueller spent about 250 pages talking about Trump as if he was indicted and Trump wasn't even requested by Mueller to give a deposition let alone charged with anything.  These people out there whom were/are saying that Trump would be indicted for Obstruction if he wasn't President really don't know what they are talking about.  You cannot be indicted and convicted of obstruction if you did not actually commit any ACTS of Obstruction.  No one interfered with the Mueller investigation, so really what you have there is a pipe dream and you have to be completely against Trump and the LAW to want to have not only the unredacted report but the underlying evidence to be released to anyone outside of what the LAW says should have it.  Congress right now is trying to violate the LAW, which is why they want to pursue contempt charges against Barr.  The LAW states that Congress is not eligible to get the Grand Jury testimony as they are not in any of the exceptions to Rule 6(e).

AG refused to let you have a 3rd party present to ask questions

What is the difference between that and the AG having a person whisper in his ear the whole time.

We are not talking about a regular Joe that doesn't want his testimony made public. We are not talking about a celebrity that wants their person details private.

We are talking about a public elected official.

Even so, us regular Joe's have our testimony, trials, arrest records, etc. made public to all. I see not outcry about that, just outcry of wanting a public, elected official to have secrecy...

You can talk about 'no American' was involved in the election meddling yet Mueller lays out proof of the campaign having multiple interactions (willingly if not gleefully) with the same Russian government that trump himself refuses to acknowledge had any hand in doing so.

It details multiple times how he even tried to obstruct the investigation.

Denying reality, is what it seems like at times.

Saying that what he is doing and has done is acceptable is nothing more than extreme partisan politics at its finest.

I dare you to tell me if Obama had done anything close to what he has, you would not be upset in the least.

So, you support violating the law regarding the release of Grand Jury testimony, National Security Information, and investigative methodology in order to take down an elected official because you don't like him? 

Don't you dare put words in my mouth! I NEVER said any such thing. Are you trolling and trying to pick a verbal fight with me? I assure you YOU will not win! Your credibility level is way too low to even consider that.

Now get lost! I don't waste time with jerks who deliberately try to put THEIR words in MY mouth. And YOU are not worth my time!

He talks like he knows what he is talking about.  Doesn't have a clue.  

Indeed.

The job of the committee is to ask the questions, not have some 3rd party do it unless it is requested or agreed to.  The AG is allowed to have counsel (another attorney) to help him avoid breaking the law or having his 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendment Rights being violated.

Is Congress mentioned in Rule 6(e)? NO.  Therefore, they are not excepted and in this case are just regular Joes.

You can talk about 'no American' was involved in the election meddling yet Mueller lays out proof of the campaign having multiple interactions (willingly if not gleefully) with the same Russian government that trump himself refuses to acknowledge had any hand in doing so.

And, ignores the many contacts that Hillary Clinton's campaign and Fusion GPS, whom Clinton's campaign hired to do research into Trump, had with many of the same Russians.  Or. did you forget that the Russian lawyer that most point to was not only "supplying" information to Trump but was working with Fusion GPS?

It details multiple times how he even tried to obstruct the investigation.

The report details the number of times he TALKED about what he could and couldn't do and asking people about it.  There was no obstruction of justice, because there was no actual interference.  Show me the EXACT ACTION taken by Trump that impeded Mueller?  Did he do as Bill Clinton did and perjure himself or direct people on what to tell the Grand Jury or investigators?  You see Bill Clinton took actual ACTIONS that impeded the investigation, Trump did not.

You telling me to get lost on MY OWN BLOG POST eliminates your credibility.  I put the words in your mouth, because by supporting the Democrats in this case, you support violating THE LAW.  If you don't want to spar with me and continue losing as you are, then I suggest you get lost and no longer comment on anything I post.

then I suggest you get lost and no longer comment on anything I post.

Not a problem. You and what you post are not worthy of my time anyway. And you are too eager to put words in other people's mouth so you can have them say only what you want to read. 

True enough. Actually, I never understood them wanting to have others ask the questions.

It almost sounds like they are not competent enough or secure enough in their own selves.

It would have been easy enough for them to consult with others and get the pertinent information they need beforehand.

So I kind of have to agree with you there.

Rule 6? From what I gather, court proceedings for us regular Joe's are usually only sealed for minors.

The difference IMO is the Hillary campaign was not itself actively involved with the Russians. They hired an opposition research firm. If I am correct, once the dossier was given, that was the end of involvement.

Honestly, I don't like these opposition research firms either. One thing that should be looked at if they ever did any campaign reform (which I doubt).

The report details how trump wanted or told people to do things. That they refused gave trump an out.

Them refusing and Trump not retaliating is what gave Trump an out.  If they had refused and Trump fired them for that refusal, then it would have been a different story.

Grand Juries, because they are investigative in nature and are unopposed (no chance for the accused to rebut anything), are kept from anyone not involved in the actual court case due to their prejudicial nature.  It would be a violation of the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendment for Grand Jury information to be publicly released particularly if the person the Grand Jury was meeting about was not indicted, tried, or convicted.

Records of federal grand jury proceedings remain confidential “to the extent and
as long as necessary to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of a matter occurring before a grand jury,” according to Rule 6(e)(6)
of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It is left to the court to determine
when to release such records.
Access to state grand jury transcripts varies. In California, transcripts of grand
jury testimony become public record once
an indictment is returned, unless a defendant can show a reasonable likelihood that
release of part or all of the transcripts would
prejudice his right to a fair trial.
Other states have no such law. A Massachusetts trial judge recently unsealed all
court documents except the grand jury transcripts in Commonwealth v. Pitsas, a case
involving a retired dentist charged with
accidentally poisoning an infant.
When the media seeks disclosure of a
grand jury transcript, a court balances the
government’s interest in secrecy against
the public’s interest in disclosure. The press
should argue “that there is an important
public interest in seeing what is in the grand
jury transcripts,” especially in cases involving botched prosecutions or government
corruption, said Lake, who submitted a
friend-of-the-court brief for the media in
United States v. Aisenberg.
In Aisenberg, the parents of a missing
infant sued the government after federal
prosecutors misled the court about evidence that was used to indict the couple for
allegedly lying to investigators. A trial court
judge ordered the complete disclosure of all
the grand jury transcripts and the government appealed. The Court of Appeals in
Atlanta (11th Cir.) reversed in February of
this year, concluding that the trial court
erred in deeming the government’s interest
in grand jury secrecy to be “minimal.”
One argument often advanced in favor
of disclosure is that the information contained in the grand jury materials is already
public knowledge, so releasing it would
cause no additional harm. In one of several
cases involving the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, the White House accused the Office of Independent Counsel of
violating grand jury secrecy. The New York
Times reported that OIC prosecutors hoped
to secure an indictment against Clinton for
perjury from the grand jury that was then
investigating him. The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., agreed it would
ordinarily violate court rules to reveal that
a grand jury was investigating someone, but
in this case it was no secret the grand jury
was investigating Clinton — he himself had
said so on national television. (In re Sealed
Case No. 99-3091 (Office of Independent Counsel Contempt Proceeding))

But even if the media has revealed grand
jury secrets, the information may still be
entitled to some protection from disclosure. Indeed, the argument that much has
already been publicized about a subject may
actually backfire on the party seeking disclosure. In Aisenberg, one of the reasons the
court gave for keeping the grand jury transcript sealed was that evidence of the prosecution’s misconduct in the case already
had been aired publicly at great length. The
lower court was wrong when it decided
disclosure was necessary “so that the public
can know about this misdirected prosecution,” the appellate court concluded. “The
public already knows.”
It is not always the government that tries
to keep grand jury materials hidden. In a
criminal case, the defense often opposes
their release while the prosecution favors it,
or at least does not object to it. In the
Spector case, for example, the district attorney’s office argued the grand jury transcript
was a public record that should be released.

The court can decide to release information. It is also different state by state. Like California for instance, after an indictment is handed down, it becomes public record.

Yes, the COURT can decide that.  So, where is the Federal Court Order that allows the release of the information in the Mueller report?

It could come into play again soon, if the House Judiciary Committee petitions Chief Judge Beryl Howell of the D.C. federal court for access to Mueller’s grand jury material. (Judge Howell has been presiding over all legal matters arising from Mueller’s grand jury.)

Some might argue that for Congress to access grand jury material under the judicial proceedings exception, it must have a formal impeachment inquiry underway. But that argument overlooks another key historical precedent: the Starr Report. Starr got judicial approval, using the judicial proceedings exception, to send his report to the House Judiciary Committee before the committee had done any investigation of its own into Clinton’s alleged wrongdoing. In fact, it was the Starr Report itself that eventually prompted impeachment proceedings for Clinton.

Even more telling, the judicial proceedings exception allowed the final report on the Iran-Contra investigation to reach the public in 1994. Obviously, the court of public opinion is not a “judicial proceeding,” but the D.C. federal appeals court didn’t let that stand in the way of the enormous public interest in the investigation’s findings. The court concluded that its own adjudication of whether to release the report constituted the “judicial proceeding” required by the rule.

Here, the House Judiciary Committee is exercising its constitutional authority to investigate allegations of the Trump administration’s obstruction of justice and other abuses of power. It launched its investigation on March 4, and authorized a subpoena for the full Mueller report on April 3. The full House of Representatives, moreover, has passed a resolution 420-0 calling on the Justice Department to make Mueller’s complete report available to Congress. The constitutional imperatives are clear.

Attorney General William Barr should support transparency and join Chairman Nadler in seeking an order from Chief Judge Howell granting Congress access to grand jury material in the Mueller report. But even if Nadler is forced to petition the court without the DOJ’s backing, Howell will have the discretion to craft an order allowing disclosure to Congress with whatever limitations on, or allowance for, further disclosure she deems appropriate.

politico

It seems it all comes down to one judge.

And, it hinges on one thing: How does one interpret what is a case of obstruction of justice.  Frankly, to me obstruction has to have an actual ACTION taken that would impede an investigation and that is what most people actually believe as well.  What the Mueller report outlines is Trump's words about what actions he could or could not take during the entire investigation.  Words are not actions and therefore do not constitute actual obstruction, otherwise every single person that has had a run-in with law enforcement for even a speeding ticket would be guilty of obstruction.

Wrong. I am not on the Left, I am non-partisan, so stop trying to insult me with saying I am on the left or any other party. Also, I don't run away from anything or anyone. So stop trying to accuse me of being a coward. 

And if you don't know what the H you are talking about, best to not say anything at all.

Frankly, to me obstruction has to have an actual ACTION taken that would impede an investigation and that is what most people actually believe as well. 

You and most people would be wrong, then.  Look up the actual definition.  Words do count.

Not really, since you have to prove that the words were aimed at a particular person (ie a threat or a bribe) that got that person to change their actions or testimony.  And, there is no evidence that such a thing happened under Trump or because of his words.  Mueller wasn't fired, no one changed their testimony, and no evidence actually exists of any Americans working with the Russians to affect the outcome of the election.

Why is it fans of Rump blame democrats for all the things Rump and his supporters do?

Deflection?

Projection?

Supporting Democrats is supporting 2-year olds throwing a tantrum

Sorry Tom, but our President has set the precedent and led the way, he is the Whiner in Chief.

Robert Mueller sent his letter to William Barr two weeks before the full report was released.  No doubt Mueller was concerned that the Attorney General would follow precedent and only release a summary.  But that's not what happened.  William Barr broke with precedent and released Mueller's report of the investigation.

Mueller's report is the full context, nature, and substance.  Any concerns Robert Mueller raised in his letter about Barr's summary have all been addressed.  Robert Mueller cannot provide any more context than what was in the full report of the investigation.

Democrats are turning the investigation into Russian election meddling into nothing more than a political farce.  Democrats hair-on-fire politics have completely destroyed the important conclusion from Mueller's investigation; Russia actively engaged in an intelligence operation within the United States to influence politics.  That's the scary conclusion from Mueller's investigation.  What that suggests is that the US government is now engaged in counter intelligence activities within the political arena.  That's even more scary than Russian meddling. 

Congressional Democrats appear to be trying to hide from the public the fact that US politics has now become a battleground for domestic and foreign intelligence activities.  Apparently Democrats are okay with that since Democrats are instead trying to use Mueller's report to focus attention on Trump as a distraction.

Democrats are not going to impeach Trump.  Period.  Democrats are trying to use Mueller's report for political gain while keeping the public ignorant of the full context, nature, and substance of Mueller's conclusions.  Democrats are obviously trying to distract the public and hide what is really happening.  And that's the scariest part of all this political theater.

William Barr broke with precedent and released Mueller's report of the investigation

The Starr report was released in full. I hardly see it breaking protocol.

The Starr report was released in full. I hardly see it breaking protocol.

Yep, looks like I got that part wrong.  Doesn't change the fact that the major concern was that AG Barr would only publicly release a summary and not the full Mueller report.

Robert Mueller's letter complaining about context was sent before William Barr publicly released the full report.  Mueller's report provides the full nature, context, and substance of the investigation; Mueller cannot provide any more context than what was in the report of the investigation.  The public release of Mueller's report addresses any concerns that Robert Muller raised in his letter to William Barr.

The Starr report also did not name anyone that was not indicted, unlike the Mueller report.

Talk about ass backwards and a complete and utter load of bullshit.  

HATE IS CONTAGIOUS. Try not to catch it. It is not a redeeming quality! - Wm Shakesit