Some on Mueller team say evidence against Trump stronger than Barr disclosed

According to a senior law enforcement official who has spoken to members of Mueller's team, Mueller team members say it includes detailed accounts of Trump campaign contacts with Russia. While Mueller found no coordination or criminal conspiracy, the official said, some team members say his findings paint a picture of a campaign whose members were manipulated by a sophisticated Russian intelligence operation. Some of that information may be classified, the official said, so it's not clear whether it will be released in a few weeks when Barr makes public a redacted version of the Mueller report.

Click to expand...

Cardinal said:

1)Mueller specifically created a public version of his report, one without classified information. That means that any argument that Barr "is just following the law" is null and void. Barr is sitting on that report in favor of one he can put his own spin on. This dishonesty and bad conduct on Barr's part betrays the public trust.

Click to expand...

Cardinal said:

Headline: Some on Mueller team say evidence against Trump stronger than Barr disclosed (yeah, I screwed up the thread title)

Trump supporters have made the argument that if Mueller had a problem with Barr's letter which created the impression of exonerating Trump, he or his team would have spoken out. Well, that's happening.



Some on Mueller team say evidence against Trump stronger than Barr disclosed

In light of the following facts...

1)Mueller specifically created a public version of his report, one without classified information. That means that any argument that Barr "is just following the law" is null and void. Barr is sitting on that report in favor of one he can put his own spin on. This dishonesty and bad conduct on Barr's part betrays the public trust.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6e45c5c04a2b
2)The members of Mueller's team that have gone to the New York Times and the Washington Post are refuting Barr's conclusions on obstruction of justice and his portrayal of the Russian coordination part of the investigation. This is enough to conclude that Barr is not acting in good faith, and is one more demonstration of dishonesty and betraying the public trust.
3)Finally, Barr auditioned for the role of AG by pre-concluding that the Special Counsel's investigation into obstruction of justice was illegitimate. There is no reason to think that he went into his role as supervisor of the Special Counsel investigation without bias. This, in addition to refusing to recuse himself if required, is the third and final betrayal of the public trust.

...it is vital that Nadler deliver the subpoena to Barr as soon as possible. This is one of the most important investigations in United States history, and Trump's hand-picked stooge is busy creating a set of alternative facts for Trump's base to parrot so that the country can't agree on a shared reality, a modus operandi that has been a cornerstone of the Trump administration.

Click to expand...

trixare4kids said:

What utter :bs.
Don't you ever tire of playing Columbo?

What a tale you spin.... pitiful and sad, really.

Click to expand...

Cardinal said:

Headline: Some on Mueller team say evidence against Trump stronger than Barr disclosed (yeah, I screwed up the thread title)

Trump supporters have made the argument that if Mueller had a problem with Barr's letter which created the impression of exonerating Trump, he or his team would have spoken out. Well, that's happening.



Some on Mueller team say evidence against Trump stronger than Barr disclosed

In light of the following facts...

1)Mueller specifically created a public version of his report, one without classified information. That means that any argument that Barr "is just following the law" is null and void. Barr is sitting on that report in favor of one he can put his own spin on. This dishonesty and bad conduct on Barr's part betrays the public trust.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6e45c5c04a2b
2)The members of Mueller's team that have gone to the New York Times and the Washington Post are refuting Barr's conclusions on obstruction of justice and his portrayal of the Russian coordination part of the investigation. This is enough to conclude that Barr is not acting in good faith, and is one more demonstration of dishonesty and betraying the public trust.
3)Finally, Barr auditioned for the role of AG by pre-concluding that the Special Counsel's investigation into obstruction of justice was illegitimate. There is no reason to think that he went into his role as supervisor of the Special Counsel investigation without bias. This, in addition to refusing to recuse himself if required, is the third and final betrayal of the public trust.

...it is vital that Nadler deliver the subpoena to Barr as soon as possible. This is one of the most important investigations in United States history, and Trump's hand-picked stooge is busy creating a set of alternative facts for Trump's base to parrot so that the country can't agree on a shared reality, a modus operandi that has been a cornerstone of the Trump administration.

Click to expand...

Barr quoted the report as saying "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."[36][37][38][39] On the question of obstruction of justice, Barr said no conclusion was reached by the special counsel, noting that Mueller wrote "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."[36][40] Per Justice Department policy, the possible case of obstruction was sent to the attorney general and deputy attorney general for review; Barr and Rosenstein concluded by March 24, 2019, that obstruction could not be proven in a court of law.

Click to expand...

trixare4kids said:

Now for the real facts....




Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) - Wikipedia

Anything else reported by Times and Post "journalists" is hearsay, rumor, and possibly outright lies.
Don't you think that if Mueller and his team got anything wrong, he, they would have corrected Barr 12 days ago?

C'mon... Lol!

Click to expand...

Cardinal said:

I guess clicking on links is just too hard for some people.

Click to expand...

The lawyers and FBI agents on Mueller's team could not reach an agreement about whether Trump's conduct amounted to a corrupt — and therefore illegal — effort to impede the probe, the three officials said.

Click to expand...

trixare4kids said:

Now for the real facts....




Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) - Wikipedia

Anything else reported by Times and Post "journalists" is hearsay, rumor, and possibly outright lies.
Don't you think that if Mueller and his team got anything wrong, he, they would have corrected Barr 12 days ago?

C'mon... Lol!

Click to expand...

Cardinal said:

I guess clicking on links is just too hard for some people.

Click to expand...

Cardinal said:

Headline: Some on Mueller team say evidence against Trump stronger than Barr disclosed (yeah, I screwed up the thread title)

Trump supporters have made the argument that if Mueller had a problem with Barr's letter which created the impression of exonerating Trump, he or his team would have spoken out. Well, that's happening.



Some on Mueller team say evidence against Trump stronger than Barr disclosed

In light of the following facts...

1)Mueller specifically created a public version of his report, one without classified information. That means that any argument that Barr "is just following the law" is null and void. Barr is sitting on that report in favor of one he can put his own spin on. This dishonesty and bad conduct on Barr's part betrays the public trust.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6e45c5c04a2b
2)The members of Mueller's team that have gone to the New York Times and the Washington Post are refuting Barr's conclusions on obstruction of justice and his portrayal of the Russian coordination part of the investigation. This is enough to conclude that Barr is not acting in good faith, and is one more demonstration of dishonesty and betraying the public trust.
3)Finally, Barr auditioned for the role of AG by pre-concluding that the Special Counsel's investigation into obstruction of justice was illegitimate. There is no reason to think that he went into his role as supervisor of the Special Counsel investigation without bias. This, in addition to refusing to recuse himself if required, is the third and final betrayal of the public trust.

...it is vital that Nadler deliver the subpoena to Barr as soon as possible. This is one of the most important investigations in United States history, and Trump's hand-picked stooge is busy creating a set of alternative facts for Trump's base to parrot so that the country can't agree on a shared reality, a modus operandi that has been a cornerstone of the Trump administration.

Click to expand...

Cardinal said:

Barr is a liar. I'm not interested in his hatchet job.

Click to expand...

apdst said:

I clicked the link. You left this part out...

Click to expand...

Cardinal said:

Headline: Some on Mueller team say evidence against Trump stronger than Barr disclosed (yeah, I screwed up the thread title)

Trump supporters have made the argument that if Mueller had a problem with Barr's letter which created the impression of exonerating Trump, he or his team would have spoken out. Well, that's happening.



Some on Mueller team say evidence against Trump stronger than Barr disclosed

In light of the following facts...

1)Mueller specifically created a public version of his report, one without classified information. That means that any argument that Barr "is just following the law" is null and void. Barr is sitting on that report in favor of one he can put his own spin on. This dishonesty and bad conduct on Barr's part betrays the public trust.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6e45c5c04a2b
2)The members of Mueller's team that have gone to the New York Times and the Washington Post are refuting Barr's conclusions on obstruction of justice and his portrayal of the Russian coordination part of the investigation. This is enough to conclude that Barr is not acting in good faith, and is one more demonstration of dishonesty and betraying the public trust.
3)Finally, Barr auditioned for the role of AG by pre-concluding that the Special Counsel's investigation into obstruction of justice was illegitimate. There is no reason to think that he went into his role as supervisor of the Special Counsel investigation without bias. This, in addition to refusing to recuse himself if required, is the third and final betrayal of the public trust.

...it is vital that Nadler deliver the subpoena to Barr as soon as possible. This is one of the most important investigations in United States history, and Trump's hand-picked stooge is busy creating a set of alternative facts for Trump's base to parrot so that the country can't agree on a shared reality, a modus operandi that has been a cornerstone of the Trump administration.

Click to expand...

trixare4kids said:

Oh the irony... Did you even bother to read your own source, or just look at the headline and start your spinning from there?

READ IT!
"The lawyers and FBI agents on Mueller's team could not reach an agreement about whether Trump's conduct amounted to a corrupt — and therefore illegal — effort to impede the probe, the three officials said. As a result, Barr, after consulting with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, stepped in to clear the president, saying the evidence did not amount to a prosecutable case of obstruction of justice."

Click to expand...

Cardinal said:

Barr is a liar. I'm not interested in his hatchet job.

Click to expand...

trixare4kids said:

You beat me to it...:3oops: well, let's see what Cardinal has to say about that. Or will he keep spinning the facts again?

Click to expand...

ajn678 said:

Are these the same third party sources of the investigators that said that there would be tons more indictments? Seems strange to me that these "people" would still be given credence.

Click to expand...

Cardinal said:

No, the sources are members of Mueller's team. They have never gone to the press before, but now they are because they're that upset with the AG's conduct.

Click to expand...

Grim17 said:

If it's a "hatchet job", then why hasn't Mueller said anything?

Click to expand...

ajn678 said:

No they aren't. Did you even read your news "source"?

Click to expand...

Cardinal said:

That in no way refutes the fact that Barr lied when he said he "was just following the law." He was given a public version of the report and he's sitting on it.

Click to expand...

Cardinal said:

I guess clicking on links is just too hard for some people.

Click to expand...

1)Mueller specifically created a public version of his report, one without classified information.

Click to expand...

“There was immediate displeasure from the team when they saw how the attorney general had characterized their work instead,” according to one U.S. official briefed on the matter.
Summaries were prepared for different sections of the report, with a view that they could made public, the official said.

The report was prepared “so that the front matter from each section could have been released immediately — or very quickly,” the official said. “It was done in a way that minimum redactions, if any, would have been necessary, and the work would have spoken for itself.”

Mueller’s team assumed the information was going to be made available to the public, the official said, “and so they prepared their summaries to be shared in their own words — and not in the attorney general’s summary of their work, as turned out to be the case.”

Click to expand...

Another person familiar with the matter disputed that characterization, saying the summaries contained sensitive information that will likely require redaction.

Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said in a statement Thursday that every page of Mueller’s confidential report was marked with a notation that it may contain confidential grand jury material, adding that it “therefore could not be publicly released.”

Click to expand...

ajn678 said:

No they aren't. Did you even read your news "source"?

Click to expand...

Cardinal said:

Read the OP.

Click to expand...