Mueller Report Might Shock Democrats

7,337 Views | 70 Replies | Last: 7 yr ago by riflebear
Mitch Blood Green
How long do you want to ignore this user?
riflebear said:

tommie said:

Doc Holliday said:




You're gonna be more surprised. If the report said "Trump has done everything reasonable and expected to safeguard elections from foreign interference", you'd already have the report.


LOL. Who was President when Trump was running for President when the Russians tried to interfere? (something they've been doing for decades)

I didn't realize the Mueller report was an inspection for how the Trump Admin was handling foreign interferance. Amazing how u guys keep spinning and turning this into something new every week.


Great question but not relevant. What matters is protecting the homeland. And Trump is about image and "winning" more than any president ever. If he can get a "win" from the report, he will.

If the Mueller report said "Trump wins", we'd know. No way he'd say "national security".
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

First "leaks" from Mueller's team in more than 2yrs...and they seem to be saying that Barr is full of sh/t. Barr ignored summaries prepared for public consumption (without needing redactions) by Mueller's team to put his own spin on incomplete sentences instead, and of course Trump followers swallowed that spin hook, line, and sinker as intended. Coordinated stories in the NYTimes and WaPo are not an accident, this is what Mueller giving an initial warning to Barr to quit fcking around sounds like.

Look where story came from. "Associates" of investigators"? Anonymous persons 'associates' of Mueller investigators?

NYTimes: Some of Robert S. Mueller III's investigators have told associates that Attorney General William P. Barr failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry

I bet wear from Mueller.

I also bet that your guys are unhappy that the Barr letter is taking the steam out of the Get Trumpers, so let's do some double hearsay from anonymous sources.
Limited IQ Redneck in PU
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I dont. If Pres. Trump wanted an AG that stood for something he would have kept Sessions. Barr is just a yes man
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

I dont. If Pres. Trump wanted an AG that stood for something he would have kept Sessions. Barr is just a yes man
I'm surprised. I respect your POV b/c you seem to be a evidence based sort of person.

Why do you not trust Barr?
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I swear, if Trump found a cure for all cancers, some here would start threads about how he's running doctors out of business.

Mitch Blood Green
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

I swear, if Trump found a cure for all cancers, some here would start threads about how he's running doctors out of business.




What more likely is Trump will take credit for the cancer cure. Trump takes credit for turning water into wine better than the bronze skin guy. He took the rib from man and made woman. God copied him.

I'm surprised, actually, that you aren't telling us Trump grabs them by the ***** because he made *****.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tommie's awfully salty. Guess he got a sense of what's coming in 2020.
HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

HuMcK said:

First "leaks" from Mueller's team in more than 2yrs...and they seem to be saying that Barr is full of sh/t. Barr ignored summaries prepared for public consumption (without needing redactions) by Mueller's team to put his own spin on incomplete sentences instead, and of course Trump followers swallowed that spin hook, line, and sinker as intended. Coordinated stories in the NYTimes and WaPo are not an accident, this is what Mueller giving an initial warning to Barr to quit fcking around sounds like.

Look where story came from. "Associates" of investigators"? Anonymous persons 'associates' of Mueller investigators?

NYTimes: Some of Robert S. Mueller III's investigators have told associates that Attorney General William P. Barr failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry

I bet wear from Mueller.

I also bet that your guys are unhappy that the Barr letter is taking the steam out of the Get Trumpers, so let's do some double hearsay from anonymous sources.

I don't know what to tell you other than that's how the game is played when the stakes are years off a person's life. NYTimes, WaPo, and now NBC all out with coordinated stories today saying a version of the same thing. You think they were all duped by some troll, with all the eyes on this? We're not talking about Breitbart or The Daily Beast here, "Several investigators" speaking as one through a third party should not be dismissed.

I'll say it again, by all appearances Mueller has run an extremely closed investigation without any public leaks that I know of, the fact that his team is having a cutout talk for them in the press now speaks at a loud volume. I think you're right that we will hear from Mueller (exactly when seems to be Barr's call at this point, Mueller's tied up negotiating redactions with DoJ for a while) and Barr. Rosenstein should be compelled to speak as well, it seemed odd that Barr's letter supposedly had his backing but not his signature, and we haven't heard from the man who oversaw most of Mueller's tenure as SC in a while. I also appreciate that Barr has publicly set a rough timeline for a release, with the hope that it isn't 50pgs buried in a puddle of black marker. I don't share your implicit trust in Barr though, he signalled his desire to be AG again with a memo arguing positions on Obstruction that are favorable to a POTUS under investigation for Obstruction...

I expected Barr to spin generously so a narrative could form while he stalls, that's tactically in line with this administration's PR strategy so far. But now we hear that Mueller possibly prepared several summaries specifically meant for release, while Barr has apparently sat on them and cited only one incomplete sentence from Mueller's Report in his letter. That's something a little different, and it makes me wonder why. Someone needs to answer if that is true or not, like tomorrow, or the stench grows.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mueller's team has already said Mueller is working with Barr on the redacted report. If no redaction was necessary, even to his summaries, that would not be true.

Next, Mueller's summaries also refer to to grand jury information, which cannot be released to the general public

Third, it's plainly obvious that Barr will be testifying about this to Congress, so there is no chance - zero - that Barr would make a statement about the report's conclusions he knew would be proven false later.

After all this wind from the Left, it has less to do with investigation than the remnants of a free chili festival.
HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Mueller's team has already said Mueller is working with Barr on the redacted report. If no redaction was necessary, even to his summaries, that would not be true.

Next, Mueller's summaries also refer to to grand jury information, which cannot be released to the general public

Third, it's plainly obvious that Barr will be testifying about this to Congress, so there is no chance - zero - that Barr would make a statement about the report's conclusions he knew would be proven false later.

After all this wind from the Left, it has less to do with investigation than the remnants of a free chili festival.

We don't know if the summaries refer to Grand Jury info, but the reports (picked up by WSJ now too I just saw) say they were specifically compiled for quick public release, so they probably don't. Anything having to do with Obstruction almost certainly won't. Barr had to know it would raise questions if he buried those summaries, which he apparently has without mention so far.

I also never said Barr made any false statements, but I did point out how narrowly tailored his cite from Mueller's Report is and how suspect that is. For real, not even a whole sentence, it's certainly not proof of anything but it's an eyebrow-raiser. I'm honestly baffled why anyone would assign this administration any credibility in the first place, they lie or obfuscate even when they don't have to and don't care all that much when they get caught, and that shouldn't really be a partisan thing to point out.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

Oldbear83 said:

Mueller's team has already said Mueller is working with Barr on the redacted report. If no redaction was necessary, even to his summaries, that would not be true.

Next, Mueller's summaries also refer to to grand jury information, which cannot be released to the general public

Third, it's plainly obvious that Barr will be testifying about this to Congress, so there is no chance - zero - that Barr would make a statement about the report's conclusions he knew would be proven false later.

After all this wind from the Left, it has less to do with investigation than the remnants of a free chili festival.

We don't know if the summaries refer to Grand Jury info, but the reports (picked up by WSJ now too I just saw) say they were specifically compiled for quick public release, so they probably don't. Anything having to do with Obstruction almost certainly won't. Barr had to know it would raise questions if he buried those summaries, which he apparently has without mention so far.

I also never said Barr made any false statements, but I did point out how narrowly tailored his cite from Mueller's Report is and how suspect that is. For real, not even a whole sentence, it's certainly not proof of anything but it's an eyebrow-raiser. I'm honestly baffled why anyone would assign this administration any credibility in the first place, they lie or obfuscate even when they don't have to and don't care all that much when they get caught, and that shouldn't really be a partisan thing to point out.
The reports picked up by the WSJ are bogus and fake news. The entire DOJ as denounced it.

You keep relying on DNC Trump-Resistance news and they keep feeding you incorrect information to get your hopes up which further divides our country.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

Osodecentx said:

HuMcK said:

First "leaks" from Mueller's team in more than 2yrs...and they seem to be saying that Barr is full of sh/t. Barr ignored summaries prepared for public consumption (without needing redactions) by Mueller's team to put his own spin on incomplete sentences instead, and of course Trump followers swallowed that spin hook, line, and sinker as intended. Coordinated stories in the NYTimes and WaPo are not an accident, this is what Mueller giving an initial warning to Barr to quit fcking around sounds like.

Look where story came from. "Associates" of investigators"? Anonymous persons 'associates' of Mueller investigators?

NYTimes: Some of Robert S. Mueller III's investigators have told associates that Attorney General William P. Barr failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry

I bet wear from Mueller.

I also bet that your guys are unhappy that the Barr letter is taking the steam out of the Get Trumpers, so let's do some double hearsay from anonymous sources.

I don't know what to tell you other than that's how the game is played when the stakes are years off a person's life. NYTimes, WaPo, and now NBC all out with coordinated stories today saying a version of the same thing. You think they were all duped by some troll, with all the eyes on this? We're not talking about Breitbart or The Daily Beast here, "Several investigators" speaking as one through a third party should not be dismissed.

I'll say it again, by all appearances Mueller has run an extremely closed investigation without any public leaks that I know of, the fact that his team is having a cutout talk for them in the press now speaks at a loud volume. I think you're right that we will hear from Mueller (exactly when seems to be Barr's call at this point, Mueller's tied up negotiating redactions with DoJ for a while) and Barr. Rosenstein should be compelled to speak as well, it seemed odd that Barr's letter supposedly had his backing but not his signature, and we haven't heard from the man who oversaw most of Mueller's tenure as SC in a while. I also appreciate that Barr has publicly set a rough timeline for a release, with the hope that it isn't 50pgs buried in a puddle of black marker. I don't share your implicit trust in Barr though, he signalled his desire to be AG again with a memo arguing positions on Obstruction that are favorable to a POTUS under investigation for Obstruction...

I expected Barr to spin generously so a narrative could form while he stalls, that's tactically in line with this administration's PR strategy so far. But now we hear that Mueller possibly prepared several summaries specifically meant for release, while Barr has apparently sat on them and cited only one incomplete sentence from Mueller's Report in his letter. That's something a little different, and it makes me wonder why. Someone needs to answer if that is true or not, like tomorrow, or the stench grows.
Thanks for a serious answer. The stories do seem to be coordinated, all quoting unnamed associates of unnamed investigators.

I just don't trust NYTimes, WaPo or NBC news. I guess the Russians have succeeded in undermining an important US institution, the mainstream media. I have listened and read as they promised collusion and obstruction for 2 years; they didn't deliver.

I will listen if you have sources (remember Watergate?). Until then it is fake news.

BTW, I put Trump in the same category. I just don't believe him

We are 2 countries
Florda_mike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

You trust Trump's, praise him, latest AG to tell the truth. I dont.
I believe Barr




Absolutely
Florda_mike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

tommie's awfully salty. Guess he got a sense of what's coming in 2020.


They've gotta be wondering how they'll survive til January 2025 with such severe cases of TDS???
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Like they never learned a thing from the Buzzfeed rake-face adventure ...
Limited IQ Redneck in PU
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

I dont. If Pres. Trump wanted an AG that stood for something he would have kept Sessions. Barr is just a yes man
I'm surprised. I respect your POV b/c you seem to be a evidence based sort of person.

Why do you not trust Barr?
Barr wrote about the report before he even saw it.

"Earlier this year, Barr wrote a lengthy memo excoriating Mueller's investigation of Trump for obstruction of justice. Mueller's investigation was "grossly irresponsible," had "potentially disastrous implications," and other choice descriptions spread over 20 pages culled from public reports. This memo was completely unsolicited.

Exactly why he wrote it is a more curious question. According to the Journal's account, based on people "familiar with the process," submitted copies of his anti-Mueller memo to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and to "the top lawyer representing the White House in the Mueller probe."


http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/trump-william-barr-memo-mueller-obstruction-justice.html


Pres. Trump also hired Barr's son to a great job at the White House.

I didnt agree with Jeff sessions on a lot of things but I respected his integrity. Our president did not respect his integrity and fired him to find someone that would fall in line with him and sit in his pocket.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

Osodecentx said:

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

I dont. If Pres. Trump wanted an AG that stood for something he would have kept Sessions. Barr is just a yes man
I'm surprised. I respect your POV b/c you seem to be a evidence based sort of person.

Why do you not trust Barr?
Barr wrote about the report before he even saw it.

"Earlier this year, Barr wrote a lengthy memo excoriating Mueller's investigation of Trump for obstruction of justice. Mueller's investigation was "grossly irresponsible," had "potentially disastrous implications," and other choice descriptions spread over 20 pages culled from public reports. This memo was completely unsolicited.

Exactly why he wrote it is a more curious question. According to the Journal's account, based on people "familiar with the process," submitted copies of his anti-Mueller memo to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and to "the top lawyer representing the White House in the Mueller probe."


http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/trump-william-barr-memo-mueller-obstruction-justice.html


Pres. Trump also hired Barr's son to a great job at the White House.

I didnt agree with Jeff sessions on a lot of things but I respected his integrity. Our president did not respect his integrity and fired him to find someone that would fall in line with him and sit in his pocket.
Barr was not wrong. Mueller's investigation was created by falsified "intel" and the SC's behavior was grossly irresponsible.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

Osodecentx said:

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

I dont. If Pres. Trump wanted an AG that stood for something he would have kept Sessions. Barr is just a yes man
I'm surprised. I respect your POV b/c you seem to be a evidence based sort of person.

Why do you not trust Barr?
Barr wrote about the report before he even saw it.

"Earlier this year, Barr wrote a lengthy memo excoriating Mueller's investigation of Trump for obstruction of justice. Mueller's investigation was "grossly irresponsible," had "potentially disastrous implications," and other choice descriptions spread over 20 pages culled from public reports. This memo was completely unsolicited.

Exactly why he wrote it is a more curious question. According to the Journal's account, based on people "familiar with the process," submitted copies of his anti-Mueller memo to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and to "the top lawyer representing the White House in the Mueller probe."


http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/trump-william-barr-memo-mueller-obstruction-justice.html


Pres. Trump also hired Barr's son to a great job at the White House.

I didnt agree with Jeff sessions on a lot of things but I respected his integrity. Our president did not respect his integrity and fired him to find someone that would fall in line with him and sit in his pocket.
I thought Sessions was a good AG, but he properly recused himself on Mueller. That means Rosenstein was overseeing the investigation. As I understand it, Barr and Rosenstein wrote the letter to Congress.

Barr's memo did not touch on the letter, just the scope of the investigation.

From NYTimes:
Ms. Kupec also said that the report and its release were subject to the regulations, which stipulate that Mr. Mueller prepare a confidential document of his findings intended only for the attorney general. She also said that sensitive information had to be blacked out first, noting that "every page of the 'confidential report'" was marked with a warning that it may contain secret grand jury testimony. Mr. Barr and other law enforcement officials are also reviewing the document for classified material, information about continuing investigations and derogatory details about third parties not directly related to the inquiry.
The attorney general has said he is aiming to send to lawmakers a redacted version of the report by mid-April. Under the regulations, he is free to release parts or all of it if he decides it is in the public interest.
The special counsel's report included summaries of the major findings, and some team members believed Mr. Barr should have included more of their material in his March 24 letter, according to the government officials. But the attorney general "does not believe the report should be released in a 'serial or piecemeal fashion,'" Ms. Kupec said, citing a letter that Mr. Barr wrote to lawmakers on Friday.
Justice Department officials have also said they determined that the summaries contained sensitive information that needed to be reviewed before they were released.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Trolling the Mueller Report
Democrats lost on collusion. Now they're inventing a coverup.

Democrats are still reeling from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's conclusion that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russians in 2016. But they've now hit upon a political comeback strategy: Accuse Attorney General William Barr of a coverup.
That's the context for Wednesday's decision by House Democrats to authorize subpoenas, on a partisan vote, demanding that Mr. Barr immediately hand over the entire Mueller report and its supporting evidence. This is intended to give the impression, abetted by a press corps that was fully invested in the collusion story, that Mr. Barr is somehow lying about Mr. Mueller's real conclusions.

That's preposterous, since Mr. Barr's four-page letter quotes directly from Mr. Mueller's report. The AG surely understood on releasing the summary of conclusions last week that he would be open to contradiction by Mr. Mueller if he took such liberties. Mr. Barr also knew he'd be called to testify before Congress once the rest of the report is released.
Mr. Barr has committed to releasing as much of the report as possible subject to Justice Department rules. He's working with the special counsel's office to make redactions required by grand-jury rules of secrecy, intelligence sources and methods, ongoing investigations, and "the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties."
Under Justice rules relating to special counsels, Mr. Barr has no obligation to provide anything beyond notifying Congress when an investigation has started or concluded, and whether the AG overruled a special counsel's decisions. Mr. Barr's notice to Congress that Mr. Mueller had completed his investigation said Mr. Mueller was not overruled.
Congress has no automatic right to more. The final subparagraph of DOJ's rule governing special counsels reads: "The regulations in this part are not intended to, do not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity, by any person or entity, in any matter, civil, criminal or administrative."

Mr. Barr has made clear that he appreciates the public interest in seeing as much of Mr. Mueller's report as possible. Yet his categories of information for review aren't frivolous or political inventions. The law protecting grand-jury secrecy is especially strict, as even Democrats admit.
House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff recently tweeted that "Barr should seek court approval (just like in Watergate) to allow the release of grand jury material. Redactions are unacceptable." This is an acknowledgment that the government must apply to a judge for permission to disclose grand-jury proceedings.
A judge can grant release in certain circumstancesnamely to government attorneys who need the information for their duties. None of the secrecy exceptions permit disclosure to Congress or the public. The purpose of this secrecy is to protect the innocent and encourage candor in grand-jury testimony.
It's true that in 1974 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a federal judge's decision to release a grand jury report to the House Judiciary Committee that was investigating Watergate. Such a sealed reportwhich juries can choose to produceis different from raw grand-jury testimony, which is what Democrats are demanding now. The Supreme Court has never ruled on such a disclosure, so Democrats could be facing a long legal battle if Mr. Barr resists their subpoenas.
Mr. Barr should release as much of the report as possible, and on close calls he should side with public disclosure. But no one should think that Democrats are really worried about a coverup. They want to see an unredacted version before the public does so they can leak selected bits that allow them to use friendly media outlets to claim there really was collusion, or to tarnish Trump officials.
The nation is entitled to the Mueller facts in their proper context, not to selective leaks from Democrats trying to revive their dashed hopes of a collusion narrative that the Mueller probe found doesn't exist.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trolling-the-mueller-report-11554333841
Limited IQ Redneck in PU
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I agree the nation deserves to see the full report. At first it seemed as if they would but now it sounds as if Barr and Trump are wavering. Barr's four page summary contained about 120 words of quotes from a 300+ page document.

I see Pres. Trump (praise him) as more of an entertainer than a leader.
Florda_mike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yeah his smoking hot economy sure entertains me all right!
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

I agree the nation deserves to see the full report. At first it seemed as if they would but now it sounds as if Barr and Trump are wavering. Barr's four page summary contained about 120 words of quotes from a 300+ page document.
How are they wavering?

The law requires some redaction. Are you advocating no redactions even if the law requires it?
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Two years of sheer paranoia are hard to let go all at once. That doesn't mean some of y'all have to double down.

Here's an article from a former federal prosecutor who's had this right every step of the way. Bottom line: yes, the report will be nuanced; no, it won't show Trump to be compromised; and yes, it's going to be released and spun by the media ad nauseam to the ongoing detriment of the country.
Florda_mike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Two years of sheer paranoia are hard to let go all at once. That doesn't mean some of y'all have to double down.

Here's an article from a former federal prosecutor who's had this right every step of the way. Bottom line: yes, the report will be nuanced; no, it won't show Trump to be compromised; and yes, it's going to be released and spun by the media ad nauseam to the ongoing detriment of the country.


^^^ BECAUSE .... the goal of the Democrat Socialist Party is to take down our country
Limited IQ Redneck in PU
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

tommie's awfully salty.....
Gross. If you are into that maybe ask him to take a shower first.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I was talking about tommie's posts. That other stuff I leave to the baristas and fake Mexicans .
riflebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
57Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Some are anxious to see the Mueller report - I am anxious to see the DOJ Inspector General's report.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
57Bear said:

Some are anxious to see the Mueller report - I am anxious to see the DOJ Inspector General's report.


Interesting.....what are you expecting/hoping to see ?
Florda_mike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
57Bear said:

Some are anxious to see the Mueller report - I am anxious to see the DOJ Inspector General's report.


Why?
57Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HOPING to see an investigation conducted honestly and fairly.
Florda_mike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
57Bear said:

HOPING to see an investigation conducted honestly and fairly.
HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
riflebear said:



Why did they need the FBI to tell them what they already knew? Does anybody honestly believe they would have heeded the FBI at all anyway? Remember, in the emails released by Don Jr, he was informed by a rep of his dad's Russian billionaire friend the Trump campaign had "the support of Russia and its government" (in fact, Jr treated that statement as something he already knew beforehand, and it was presented as if it had been stated before). There's also the 2015 emails between Cohen and Felix Sater (another criminal Russian...) where Sater is giddy with excitement, telling Cohen "buddy our boy can become president of the USA and we can engineer it. I will get all of Putin's team to buy in on this".

Sounds to me like the Trump campaign should have known good and well that the Russians were inerested in them, without needing any FBI warnings. That, or they're the stupidest group or humans alive, which can't be ruled out. Those are kind of our options at this point, they were either traitorous scum that didn't care who they were working with, or maybe just too dumb to see the trap they set for themselves by dealing with Russians while a Russian espionage campaign installed Republicans into power, and I'm not sure which is worse. Gotta say though, those emails make the relationships sound pretty consensual to me.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
57Bear said:

Some are anxious to see the Mueller report - I am anxious to see the DOJ Inspector General's report.
Agreed.
Page 2 of 3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.