• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mueller complained that Barr’s letter did not capture ‘context’ of Trump probe

Idiometer said:
After hearing about Trump's friendly hour long call with Putin today, I'd say that Putin is finally getting his payoff. Trump wants more trade with Russia. Next step: easing or removing sanctions. All playing right into Putin's hands.
Click to expand...
I'll wait, but so far it doesn't seem that way.
 
Idiometer said:
Wow, okay, split those hairs. The fact remains that Barr was, by then fully aware of how Mueller felt about his four page summary, so his "I don't know" was a blatant lie. You went to a lot of trouble for nothing more than repeating what BARR said about a conversation with MUELLER. Do you think Mueller will corroborate that? I'm doubtful.

:failpail:
Click to expand...
I think not, by then, at best Barr knew some on Mueller's team disagreed with Barr's summary. He wasn't asked that.
 
Idiometer said:
It CAN be released if the owner of the document(s), namely Barr, gets permission from that grand jury, something he refuses to do.
Click to expand...

No. The law is clear-- Congress is not entitled to Grand Jury material. In fact, the DC Circuit Court reaffirmed this about a month.
Of course, Congress can just, you know, change the law. If they really serous, that is.
 
Idiometer said:
BS. A FISA warrant, as with ANY type of search warrant, is for the purpose of obtaining evidence. It is not a requirement that the target of the warrant be charged with a crime in advance of a warrant being issued. That isn't even remotely logical. Warrant first, due to reasonable suspician (and the bar for that is extremely high for FISA warrants), and THEN charges if the warrant bears fruit. In Page's case, it didn't. I personally don't think he was smart enough to know that his Russian buddies were covert operatives. Useful idiot, as they say in Spyland.

The basis for thinking that Trump was conspiring? Beats me. Was he just being sarcastic when he asked "Russia, if you're listening ..."? Probably, but the first wikileaks dump of stolen document only took three days after that rally. Evidence, but definitely thin.
Click to expand...

If Page didn't know that these Russian guys were agents, then legally there should not have been a FISA warrant issued. That is a requirement of a FISA warrant issued on an American citizen.
What carried the warrant was the dossier.
 
Idiometer said:
Want? More like need. Do you really not know how government works? The document owner is the AG. He's the one who needs to ask for permission to unredact.
Click to expand...

Yes I do know how government works and a concerned US citizen could go to court seeking to have the information released if the criteria of the law is met. Congress could get relevant grand jury info if they were to begin the impeachment process. As could a prosecutor going to court against some other party involved. Barr could get it if he was going to prosecute someone based upon the grand jury info.
 
Idiometer said:
It CAN be released if the owner of the document(s), namely Barr, gets permission from that grand jury, something he refuses to do.
Click to expand...

LOLOL! Grand juries don't give permission to release GJ material silly. Only the court can do that.
 
Cardinal said:
From Mueller's letter to Barr:

“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. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”

Which was, of course, Barr's intent. And he succeeded, having given Trump's base a false narrative they can parrot over and over and over again, regardless of how perfectly that narrative is in direct contrast to Mueller's own words.
Click to expand...

Good Point, Good Point. That's why he exercised his prerogative as AG to not release the full report later, right?
 
Idiometer said:
After hearing about Trump's friendly hour long call with Putin today, I'd say that Putin is finally getting his payoff. Trump wants more trade with Russia. Next step: easing or removing sanctions. All playing right into Putin's hands.
Click to expand...

As someone who A) works in foreign policy and B) wholeheartedly agreed that Russia loved that Trump got elected...

...this general thrust doesn't fly. Trump has been much, much tougher on Russia than his predecessor was. Obama watched Russia take over Crimea, changing the map by force in Europe for the first time in WWII. In contrast, when Russians crossed the wrong river in Syria, Trump killed hundreds of them. Obama removed missile defense from Poland (without warning Poland, which rather tanked our relationship there for a bit), Trump has boosted missile defense instead. The sanctions regime on Russia is tougher than it was under Obama, there's been no silly "reset" nonsense, etc. so on and so forth.

Though it's entertaining to imagine how the left would respond if it was Trump caught on an open mike sending a message to Putin that he would be more flexible after reelection, it's worth remembering that it was Obama instead.
 
Idiometer said:
FFS, can't you read? From the link I provided:

"On April 10, in a back and forth between Barr and Sen. Chris Van Hollen over Barr's March 24 letter, the Maryland Democrat asked Barr, "Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?"

"I don't know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion," Barr replied."

That was Barr, lying. I'm sure you'll want to apologize for calling me a liar.

:waiting:
Click to expand...

This is among the dumbest of accusations.

Here is the text of the letter. Feel free to point to where Mueller said "I disagree with your conclusions".

You will find that it doesn't. It reiterates the original wish that Barr had published the fuller summaries from the report instead of his letter, and asks for Barr to release the full thing - which he did.

Barr offered Mueller a chance to review the letter before he sent it to Congress, and Mueller didn't. When asked point blank if he was claiming Barr's letter was inaccurate or misrepresented his report, Mueller said no, but that he didn't like what the press was saying about why he didn't reach a conclusion on obstruction. Testimony starting at the 38:50 mark.
 
Idiometer said:
After hearing about Trump's friendly hour long call with Putin today, I'd say that Putin is finally getting his payoff. Trump wants more trade with Russia. Next step: easing or removing sanctions. All playing right into Putin's hands.
Click to expand...

I fail to see where a conversation between world leaders is justifiably conflated with "getting his payoff".

Please substantiate your claim. What actual actions to support such have actually been taken?
 
Idiometer said:
FFS, can't you read? From the link I provided:

"On April 10, in a back and forth between Barr and Sen. Chris Van Hollen over Barr's March 24 letter, the Maryland Democrat asked Barr, "Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?"

"I don't know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion," Barr replied."

That was Barr, lying. I'm sure you'll want to apologize for calling me a liar.

:waiting:
Click to expand...
You're lyiing .
Again. Show us the quote where Mueller said he didn't agree with barr's conclusion on obstruction.
 
Idiometer said:
Wow, okay, split those hairs. The fact remains that Barr was, by then fully aware of how Mueller felt about his four page summary, so his "I don't know" was a blatant lie. You went to a lot of trouble for nothing more than repeating what BARR said about a conversation with MUELLER. Do you think Mueller will corroborate that? I'm doubtful.

:failpail:
Click to expand...

I didn't know YOU were aware of how Mueller felt....can you please fill us in on that phone call, you must have been listening in...otherwise...how would you know how Mueller felt?
 
Fletch said:
We dont now if Mueller supports Barrs conclusion. So Barr didnt lie about that.
Click to expand...

Geebus but the right can be dense. Did you not read Mueller's letter to Barr? He most certainly did disagree with Barr's conclusions.
 
Fletch said:
It wasnt a lie, since even today we dont know if Mueller supports Bars conclusion. We wont know until Mueller testifies. You guys are just way too eager to paint everything a s a lie or a crime. We put up with two years of that crap and Mueller turned up nothing. Time for you to accept the results of the 2016 election, move on and and finally show a bit of interest in how this big lie got started.
Click to expand...

Maybe Mueller's letter is too subtle for you, or maybe you haven't read it. He seems pretty clear to me. He seems angry, which is why he went to paper in the first place, something that is never done in justice circles except in extreme circumstances, like having a boss who ignores the findings of your 22 months of hard work and misrepresents your efforts to the public.

Read the letter.

Read: Robert Mueller letter to Attorney General William Barr - CNNPolitics
 
Plus Ultra said:
I think not, by then, at best Barr knew some on Mueller's team disagreed with Barr's summary. He wasn't asked that.
Click to expand...

No, Barr had spoken by phone to Mueller after releasing his summary on March 24, followed by this letter:

Read: Robert Mueller letter to Attorney General William Barr - CNNPolitics

Then, on April 10, he lied when asked if Mueller agreed with his conclusions. Everyone seems focused on the question on April 9 with Crist, which was a different question regarding Mueller's team. I'm talking about his testimony on April 10, when Senator Chris Van Hollen asked “Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?” to which Barr answered "I don’t know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion." That was a blatant lie.
 
Idiometer said:
Maybe Mueller's letter is too subtle for you, or maybe you haven't read it. He seems pretty clear to me. He seems angry, which is why he went to paper in the first place, something that is never done in justice circles except in extreme circumstances, like having a boss who ignores the findings of your 22 months of hard work and misrepresents your efforts to the public.

Read the letter.

Read: Robert Mueller letter to Attorney General William Barr - CNNPolitics
Click to expand...

The Mueller report found that there was no conspiracy between Russia and Trump to fix the 2016 election.
The Barr memo said the Mueller report said there was no conspiracy between Russia and Trump to fix the 2016 election.

The Mueller report said that he could not exonerate Trump of obstruction.
The Barr memo said that Mueller report said that it could not exonerate Trump of obstruction.
That's the bottom line. Barr's memo was accurate as to what Mueller said in his report

Mueller, and many people hereabouts, seem to be upset over the 'public relations' aspect of this.
 
Idiometer said:
No, Barr had spoken by phone to Mueller after releasing his summary on March 24, followed by this letter:

Read: Robert Mueller letter to Attorney General William Barr - CNNPolitics

Then, on April 10, he lied when asked if Mueller agreed with his conclusions. Everyone seems focused on the question on April 9 with Crist, which was a different question regarding Mueller's team. I'm talking about his testimony on April 10, when Senator Chris Van Hollen asked “Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?” to which Barr answered "I don’t know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion." That was a blatant lie.
Click to expand...

As per that WASHINGTON POST story, Mueller did not object to the conclusion.
 
Athanasius68 said:
If Page didn't know that these Russian guys were agents, then legally there should not have been a FISA warrant issued. That is a requirement of a FISA warrant issued on an American citizen.
What carried the warrant was the dossier.
Click to expand...

Bull****. If you are consorting with agents of an adversarial nation, it does not matter whether or not you KNOW they are agents. That makes no sense. The FBI would not have known, before the warrant, what Page did or did not know about his Russian friends.

And the dossier was only one piece used to obtain the warrant, due to Page being mentioned in it. Page was on the FBI's radar as far back as 2008, ffs. They felt the need for the warrant when Trump announced that Page, whom they already had reason to suspect, was named as a foreign policy advisor for the campaign.

There was nothing illegal about the warrant, but I hope they go ahead and investigate. It will be Benghazi all over again.
 
dixon01767 said:
LOLOL! Grand juries don't give permission to release GJ material silly. Only the court can do that.
Click to expand...

You're right, my error. My point remains that Barr could have gotten permission to unredact, he was urged to do so more than once, but chose not to.
 
Idiometer said:
Bull****. If you are consorting with agents of an adversarial nation, it does not matter whether or not you KNOW they are agents. That makes no sense. The FBI would not have known, before the warrant, what Page did or did not know about his Russian friends.

And the dossier was only one piece used to obtain the warrant, due to Page being mentioned in it. Page was on the FBI's radar as far back as 2008, ffs. They felt the need for the warrant when Trump announced that Page, whom they already had reason to suspect, was named as a foreign policy advisor for the campaign.

There was nothing illegal about the warrant, but I hope they go ahead and investigate. It will be Benghazi all over again.
Click to expand...

To get a FISA warrant on an American, yes, the American has to be shown to be knowlingly, not just consorting with foreign agents, but also knowingly committing a crime in the process consorting with known foreign agents.
The FISA warrant allows the use of the surveillance powers of the USA on the subject.

I would agree that the hiring of Page rattled the Obama Admin. However, there were other ways of dealing with the concern (like, maybe telling Trump).
 
cpwill said:
This is among the dumbest of accusations.

Here is the text of the letter. Feel free to point to where Mueller said "I disagree with your conclusions".

You will find that it doesn't. It reiterates the original wish that Barr had published the fuller summaries from the report instead of his letter, and asks for Barr to release the full thing - which he did.

Barr offered Mueller a chance to review the letter before he sent it to Congress, and Mueller didn't. When asked point blank if he was claiming Barr's letter was inaccurate or misrepresented his report, Mueller said no, but that he didn't like what the press was saying about why he didn't reach a conclusion on obstruction. Testimony starting at the 38:50 mark.
Click to expand...

Third paragraph, second sentence: "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."

Maybe that's too subtle for righties? Seems clear to me that Mueller disagreed with Barr's four page summary.

"When asked point blank if he was claiming Barr's letter was inaccurate or misrepresented his report, Mueller said no,..." When asked by whom? We only have Barr's word for that, don't we?
 
eohrnberger said:
I fail to see where a conversation between world leaders is justifiably conflated with "getting his payoff".

Please substantiate your claim. What actual actions to support such have actually been taken?
Click to expand...

It was my opinion of why Putin wanted to help Trump get elected in the first place. The only actions taken so far on Russian sanctions was the recent action Trump took to remove those sanctions from three Russian corporations headed up by Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch and criminal, a close buddy of Putin's, and the man to whom Manafort owed about $16 million. Is it unreasonable, after Trump's characterization of this latest talk with Putin being partly about increasing trade with Russia, to think that more sanctions are likely to fall soon?

Sheesh. Can you "prove" all of your opinions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom