Do you accept the Barr Report at face value?

[Cardinal]

I was shocked by Barr's summary since it seemed to fly in the face of observable reality. Neal Katyal goes into depth on the problems with the Barr letter.

But the critical part of the letter is that it now creates a whole new mess. After laying out the scope of the investigation and noting that Mr. Mueller’s report does not offer any legal recommendations, Mr. Barr declares that it therefore “leaves it to the attorney general to decide whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime.” He then concludes the president did not obstruct justice when he fired the F.B.I. director, James Comey.

Such a conclusion would be momentous in any event. But to do so within 48 hours of receiving the report (which pointedly did not reach that conclusion) should be deeply concerning to every American.

The special counsel regulations were written to provide the public with confidence that justice was done. It is impossible for the public to reach that determination without knowing two things. First, what did the Mueller report conclude, and what was the evidence on obstruction of justice? And second, how could Mr. Barr have reached his conclusion so quickly?

The opening lines of the obstruction section of Mr. Barr’s letter are even more concerning. It says that the special counsel investigated “a number of actions by the president — most of which have been the subject of public reporting.” That suggests that at least some of the foundation for an obstruction of justice charge has not yet been made public. There will be no way to have confidence in such a quick judgment about previously unreported actions without knowing what those actions were.

That memo made the argument that the obstruction of justice statute does not apply to the president because the text of the statute doesn’t specifically mention the president. Of course, the murder statute doesn’t mention the president either, but no one thinks the president can’t commit murder. Indeed, the Office of Legal Counsel had previously concluded that such an argument to interpret another criminal statute, the bribery law, was wrong.

Sometimes momentous government action leaves everyone uncertain about the next move. This is not one of those times. Congress now has a clear path of action. It must first demand the release of the Mueller report, so that Americans can see the evidence for themselves. Then, it must call Mr. Barr and Mr. Mueller to testify. Mr. Barr in particular must explain his rationale for reaching the obstruction judgment he made.

Opinion | The Many Problems With the Barr Letter - The New York Times

I went through many phases today after reading Barr's letter, but I've arrived at the unavoidable conclusion that we must see the Mueller report for ourselves.

 

[Slyfox696]

The Barr Report, of course, being distinctly Barr's own four page summary of Mueller's report.

Do you accept the Barr Report at face value?

1. Yes, I have no reason to doubt it.
2. No, I'll wait on the Mueller Report, whenever that happens.
3. I don't know.

I believe it is factually accurate. I also believe it is not the truth.

I was shocked by Barr's summary since it seemed to fly in the face of observable reality. Neal Katyal goes into depth on the problems with the Barr letter.

Opinion | The Many Problems With the Barr Letter - The New York Times

I went through many phases today after reading Barr's letter, but I've arrived at the unavoidable conclusion that we must see the Mueller report for ourselves.

Barr's letter today is consistent with a letter from a defense attorney. The fact so many in the media were so willing to engage in the spin is what's sad.

 

[trixare4kids]

It's mostly just a continuous of the left's butt hurt since 2016, trix. As you know on that other forum we used to frequent and on this one the overriding sentiment of the left was that Mueller was going to ride out of the sunrise in full shining armor and deliver the proof that Trump stole the election from Maid Hilary whose trophy it rightfully was. And now, from their viewpoint :hitsfan: I wonder how our buddy over there is taking this. Suicide watch? :lol:

LOL! probably...
You and I always said from the beginning it was a big old nothing burger, and by golly, we weren't wrong.

 

[TurtleDude]

Barr is a total Republican stooge who was involved in pardoning the players in Iran Contra. The removal of Jeff Sessions because Trump was scared of the Russian investigation remains a glaring mark against this President and the public trust.

Remember, Jeff Sessions was removed because he wouldn't obstruct justice for the President.

Sessions is an intellectual lightweight , While the AG position is more political than based on legal brilliance, Sessions was still below par.

 

[upsideguy]

I read roots in a couple of days and had to provide a book report.

Let go of your lame analogy. Roots is not an intricate legal document and the consequence of missing something (getting it wrong) in Roots means you get a "B" on your book report, you don't put the Union in peril.

I have read lots of legal documents in my day (I use to do merger and acquisition work). I certainly could do a cursory read of 500 pages over a weekend and have a decent grasp on the points, but it would be reckless to make a major decision on my comprehension of such a quick read.

While I do agree that an accomplished attorney with a subject matter expert (Rosenberg) probably could do a decent job over a weekend, they would do so with some level of risk of missing something; likely rushing to judgement. This was a rush job.

So I agree that Barr could read the document over the weekend with Rosenstein's help, I don't agree your Roots analogy holds one iota of relevance.

 

[Gaea]

It's actually "The Barr and Rosenstein Report". They worked together on it with help from Mueller, himself. Barr and Rosenstein also came to their obstruction conclusion together.

I have no reason to doubt it.

As far as I know, Mueller was not consulted on the summary. The only involvement he had in the summary was the (so far) unknown report that he submitted to DOJ.

Did congress get to decide if Ken Starr's report was on the up and up?
Just more whining from butt hurt leftists and Trump haters.

We haven't seen Mueller's report.

I don't think anybody is disputing Mueller's report. They're skeptical of Barr's summary.

 

[Winston]

Sessions is an intellectual lightweight , While the AG position is more political than based on legal brilliance, Sessions was still below par.

I don't think competence has ever been a deal-breaker for the Trump administration.

 

[TurtleDude]

I don't think competence has ever been a deal-breaker for the Trump administration.

that has been true for most administrations

 

[nota bene]

Sessions is an intellectual lightweight , While the AG position is more political than based on legal brilliance, Sessions was still below par.

He just wasn't suited to the job. Peter Principle.

 

[TurtleDude]

He just wasn't suited to the job. Peter Principle.

I agree with you on that one-he was a bad choice.

 

[PirateMk1]

I believe it is factually accurate. I also believe it is not the truth.
Barr's letter today is consistent with a letter from a defense attorney. The fact so many in the media were so willing to engage in the spin is what's sad.

The media doesn't do leg work anymore. Until they do its all spin. They make their money off controversy. The more the merrier.

 

[Moderate Right]

The Barr Report, of course, being distinctly Barr's own four page summary of Mueller's report.

Do you accept the Barr Report at face value?

1. Yes, I have no reason to doubt it.
2. No, I'll wait on the Mueller Report, whenever that happens.
3. I don't know.

Barr isn't going to flagrantly lie in his report, knowing that the House Dems are going to get the report in full at some point, even if it is only certain members. In fact, he specifically said that as far as obstruction of justice goes, the Mueller report didn't exonerate Trump, even though it didn't convict him either. He said that Mueller laid out the left's argument for obstruction of justice and the right's argument that there was no obstruction of justice and basically implied that most of the information gleaned was information already known in public. The left already know their argument. Mueller's got nothing new on that other than what the left already know.

 

[Waddy]

President Trump just got exonerated. No guilt to be found. No indictment. No recommendation of indictment. He won that election fair and square.

For two years you liberals have counted on this investigation, headed by a liberal and with a staff of Democrat lawyers, would put Trump in prison and destroy his presidency. Why were there no leaks during the investigation? There was nothing to leak. They had nothing on Trump. So it was a witch hunt after all. The summary says it all; Barr, Mueller and Rosenstein all worked on the summary. If there were any evidence in there to indict President Trump it would have been presented. You just don't want it to end. Well, the public is sick of your crap. Sick of hearing about it. Sick of spending money on it. Your favorite MSM outlet, the 24/7 Trump hate channel, CNN, is learning this lesson the hard way; double digit decline in viewership.

 

[Cardinal]

Barr isn't going to flagrantly lie in his report, knowing that the House Dems are going to get the report in full at some point, even if it is only certain members. In fact, he specifically said that as far as obstruction of justice goes, the Mueller report didn't exonerate Trump, even though it didn't convict him either. He said that Mueller laid out the left's argument for obstruction of justice and the right's argument that there was no obstruction of justice and basically implied that most of the information gleaned was information already known in public. The left already know their argument.

Read the thread.

 

[ralphcdp]

Read the thread.

Americans, right and left, never want to read the truth, let alone face it.

 

[antiquity]

No, Because it seems Barr more or less rendered a a legal opinion or a prosecutorial decision in less than 48 hours about what I suspect is a voluminous report that took 2 years to put together. No, I'm sorry but Mr. Barr is going to have to do better that that.

Barr and the Justice Department has been overseeing the Mueller investigation for the last two+ years..of course he knew what was in the Mueller report and Barr and Rosenstein had plenty of time to write their summary letter to Congress and the public.

 

[Waddy]

Barr and the Justice Department has been overseeing the Mueller investigation for the last two+ years..of course he knew what was in the Mueller report and Barr and Rosenstein had plenty of time to write their summary letter to Congress and the public.

That report has gotta hurt!!! Liberals were COUNTING on it to bring down President Trump. Now what can they do? Deny, deny, deny. Spin, spin, spin. Accuse Mueller of being a shill. He used to be "their guy", but he didn't come through. The audacity of the man to exonerate Trump. He was supposed to find anything, even if he had to make it up!!!! Accuse Barr of misrepresenting the findings. Accuse everyone involved of secretly working for the Russians!! The Russians HAD to be behind Trump's election win! He couldn't possibly have won fairly. Well, turns out he did.

 

[Fletch]

You're a glaring example of why Trump said that he 'loves the uneducated'.

Funny how the 'uneducated' saw through the collusion hoax and you supposedly brilliant liberals got totally played.

 

[Fletch]

I'm guessing that you wouldn't trust me to take your arguments and summarize them faithfully, even if I did pepper that summary with the occasional direct quote from you.

I actually would trust you to summarize an argument. Are you saying you shouldnt be trusted?

 

[OldFatGuy]

It must be a conspiracy.

 

[The Mark]

The Barr Report, of course, being distinctly Barr's own four page summary of Mueller's report.

Do you accept the Barr Report at face value?

1. Yes, I have no reason to doubt it.
2. No, I'll wait on the Mueller Report, whenever that happens.
3. I don't know.

Generally speaking I'm accepting it, because I think it would be crazy for Barr to be lying in his summery of a summery.

I'd still like to see the whole thing, I mean after all we paid for it, we should get something more than 4 pages for almost 2 years of work from that number of people.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Funny how the 'uneducated' saw through the collusion hoax and you supposedly brilliant liberals got totally played.

Only the 'uneducated" would believe that the 'Barr report' could in any way, shape, or form substitute for the Mueller report.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Barr and the Justice Department has been overseeing the Mueller investigation for the last two+ years..of course he knew what was in the Mueller report and Barr and Rosenstein had plenty of time to write their summary letter to Congress and the public.

LOL! Barr has only been on the job a as AG for a month or less. He didn't have a ****ing to do with the formation of the Mueller report in any way whatsoever. What the hell? Did you just wake up or something?

 

[Atomic Kid]

He just wasn't suited to the job. Peter Principle.

But he was 'suited' enough to have prominent position in his campaign?

 

[Harshaw]

No, Because it seems Barr more or less rendered a a legal opinion or a prosecutorial decision in less than 48 hours about what I suspect is a voluminous report that took 2 years to put together. No, I'm sorry but Mr. Barr is going to have to do better that that.

No, he didn't. He's known about the obstruction finding for three weeks.

Mueller told Barr, Rosenstein 3 weeks ago he would not make decision on obstruction