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

[cpwill]

"I accept your implicit admission that you are factually incorrect, ..." -- By all means, tell me what I think and tell me what I have said. Only conservatives do that on these forums. It's childish and annoying.

Perhaps you lack the subtlety to understand that words so not mean what they mean, but rather mean something else entirely so long as that something else fits your political preferences?


But I tell you what; you stop doing it to Mueller, and I'll stop doing it to you. Until then, I accept your obvious implicit argument that you think Barr is a fantastic AG and one of if not the most honest man currently serving in Government

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[tres borrachos]

Just 2 lawmakers have seen less-redacted Mueller report - POLITICO

It's been offered as a less-redacted version, not a fully redacted version, to only 12 members of Congress. And as of 5 days ago, only 2 had seen it.

And? That still doesn't answer his question. He asked about an unredacted version, first off. That isn't it. He asked who wanted to have it released to the public. Your link doesn't answer that.

 

[SLC]

The unredacted report is still not available to Congress. Barr offered a "less-redacted" report to only 12 members of Congress - 6 Republicans and 6 Democrats. Only 12. Out of 535.

And how many Democrats have read that report?

 

[tres borrachos]

And how many Democrats have read that report?

Rhetorical question, I assume. Unless you aren't adult enough to know that people on this board are not lawmakers? Not sure what you thought when you joined here last year, but this isn't a board populated by Democratic representatives in Congress. And I doubt any of the 12 Democrats the "less redacted" report was offered to post here.

 

[cabse5]

The unredacted report is still not available to Congress. Barr offered a "less-redacted" report to only 12 members of Congress - 6 Republicans and 6 Democrats. Only 12. Out of 535.

Not all members of congress have clearance to read the less redacted Mueller Report.

 

[tres borrachos]

Not all members of congress have clearance to read the less redacted Mueller Report.

Hey, thanks for agreeing what I just said. Maybe you want to peruse the posts claiming it was made available to members of Congress to tell those posters how wrong they are.

 

[Athanasius68]

That's Barr's spin on it for a congressional audience.

Someone like Mueller, who spent his life serving his country, years of which were in law enforcement, does not "go to paper" lightly. One ony does that when ine is completely frustrated and angry with the decisions of higher-ups. It is a way to get YOUR views of an issue into the permanent record. The fact that Mueller took that action speaks volumes about just how much he disagrees with Barr's assessment of the report. He would not have written a blatant accusation towards Barr, but apparently his wording is too subtle for the mind of a Trumpster.

And what do Trump supporters do? Split hairs and argue semantics.

:roll:

The man has just spent two years investigating the matter. And we are supposed to believe he wasn't able took express his views?

 

[NWRatCon]

You offer an example showing Mueller's seizure of privileged items (Cohen's legal files). Specifically identified legal files obtained questioning a paralegal at Manafort's law office were seized by Mueller's investigators, none containing any privileged attorney-client communications or work-product? The investigation of Carter Page was premised on that infamous uncorroborated dossier which the FISA court may not have been properly appraised of its provenance and reliability, the warrants the court issued were renewed in a manner contrary to the court's regulations (with no new evidence), if the seizure of evidence from Page produced any evidence of collusion or obstruction, that could be inadmissible too. Frankly the redacted material and those millions of pages of documents the investigation considered may well reveal the magnitude of this admissibility problem.

This whole line of argument is based upon unfounded speculation on top of unfounded speculation. There is a distinct lack of "there."

 

[SLC]

Rhetorical question, I assume. Unless you aren't adult enough to know that people on this board are not lawmakers? Not sure what you thought when you joined here last year, but this isn't a board populated by Democratic representatives in Congress. And I doubt any of the 12 Democrats the "less redacted" report was offered to post here.

What a dumb response. You seem to know a lot about the availability of the less redacted report. Its interesting you didn't respond with the simple truth that ZERO Democrats have read the less redacted report. Even though they say they want to see everything they have not taken the time to see everything available to them. Republicans have gone to the SKIF and read the less redacted versions of the report but not Democrats. The only thing still redacted is the Grand Jury testimony which Barr is prohibited by law in releasing. Now if the Democrats still want to see that let them make a law that releases Grand Jury testimony. Otherwise they need to shut up.

 

[Plus Ultra]

Hey, thanks for agreeing what I just said. Maybe you want to peruse the posts claiming it was made available to members of Congress to tell those posters how wrong they are.

But the less redacted report was made available to members of Congress, albeit just those on the Judiciary Committee. The fact that none of the Democrats on that Committee chose to review the unredacted parts seems significant to me.

On the claim Barr seeks to delay, this isn’t evident from his handling of the Report, he put out a quick summary of the two legal conclusions (no collusion and no decision on obstruction), then 3 weeks later delivered the redacted Report. Democrats complain the 3 weeks provided Trump a PR advantage as he touted “no collusion”, but we should consider Mueller knew redactions would be required, was asked to render these himself, but chose not to. Those 3 weeks could have been shortened if Mueller had delivered a Report that could be immediately made public. Barr had announced he would make the Report available to the public and Mueller knew that at least the grand jury material could not be lawfully disclosed.

If Barr wants to delay he can, and this could have an adverse effect on Democrats in impeachment efforts since they seek the material Mueller relied on to draft his Report. We don’t know what is in that material, but there are likely a variety of legal arguments to support maintaining the secrecy of grand juries, concealing sources and methods in intelligence gathering, protecting information about ancillary third parties, and impeding disclosure of matters still under investigation or referred to other agencies.

While Barr and Congress battle in court over the release of everything Mueller considered, Democrats will have to deal with the public perception as they campaign for election that they’ve become obsessed with Trump and ignore those ‘kitchen table’ issues their constituents would like to see them work on instead (immigration, healthcare, gun control...). All the while Trump will be repeating that “no collusion” and likely suggesting it is time to deal with issues other than this Democrat obsession.

 

[SLC]

Not all members of congress have clearance to read the less redacted Mueller Report.

And the Democrats that have the clearance to see it have not bothered to go read it.

 

[SLC]

I find it interesting that Democrats complain that the 3 weeks between the Barr letter and report release gave Trump a political advantage. They just spent 2 years flogging Trump with a collusion lie. And they whine about 3 weeks. :roll:

 

[Roadvirus]

And the Democrats that have the clearance to see it have not bothered to go read it.

Not enough pictures and too many multi-syllable words for them.

 

[Acadia]

But the less redacted report was made available to members of Congress, albeit just those on the Judiciary Committee. The fact that none of the Democrats on that Committee chose to review the unredacted parts seems significant to me.

On the claim Barr seeks to delay, this isn’t evident from his handling of the Report, he put out a quick summary of the two legal conclusions (no collusion and no decision on obstruction), then 3 weeks later delivered the redacted Report. Democrats complain the 3 weeks provided Trump a PR advantage as he touted “no collusion”, but we should consider Mueller knew redactions would be required, was asked to render these himself, but chose not to. Those 3 weeks could have been shortened if Mueller had delivered a Report that could be immediately made public. Barr had announced he would make the Report available to the public and Mueller knew that at least the grand jury material could not be lawfully disclosed.

If Barr wants to delay he can, and this could have an adverse effect on Democrats in impeachment efforts since they seek the material Mueller relied on to draft his Report. We don’t know what is in that material, but there are likely a variety of legal arguments to support maintaining the secrecy of grand juries, concealing sources and methods in intelligence gathering, protecting information about ancillary third parties, and impeding disclosure of matters still under investigation or referred to other agencies.

While Barr and Congress battle in court over the release of everything Mueller considered, Democrats will have to deal with the public perception as they campaign for election that they’ve become obsessed with Trump and ignore those ‘kitchen table’ issues their constituents would like to see them work on instead (immigration, healthcare, gun control...). All the while Trump will be repeating that “no collusion” and likely suggesting it is time to deal with issues other than this Democrat obsession.

I'm not sure if I'm surprised or not to see Kamala Harris double down on the tactics she used with Kavanaugh and use them on Barr, to gin up a phony case of perjury while testifying before Congress. It didn't work for Kavanaugh and it's not going to work for Barr, even though she has even Nancy Pelosi repeating it.
I think perhaps dias Kamala is the proverbial scorpion who to her core, wishes to destroy people to get her way. I don't think it's a winning strategy that will resonate with the American heartland.
But good on Kamala for being true to herself.

 

[Acadia]

I find it interesting that Democrats complain that the 3 weeks between the Barr letter and report release gave Trump a political advantage. They just spent 2 years flogging Trump with a collusion lie. And they whine about 3 weeks. :roll:

Then they whine about Barr not basing his decision upon reading every piece of material gathered. That would have taken months and months, if not a year.

 

[Acadia]

And the Democrats that have the clearance to see it have not bothered to go read it.

I've yet to hear an explanation as to why.

 

[SLC]

I've yet to hear an explanation as to why.

No TV cameras in a SKIF room.

 

[Acadia]

No TV cameras in a SKIF room.

And yet I'm pretty sure Adam Schiff managed to leak from one:lol:

 

[Trump]

Then they whine about Barr not basing his decision upon reading every piece of material gathered. That would have taken months and months, if not a year.

just in Barnes and Noble....Mueller Report in paperback $15..unreadable...one big pile of **** with a $30,000,000.00 price tag

 

[AmIsraelHai]

[h=1]Mueller complained that Barr’s letter did not capture ‘context’ of Trump probe[/h]https://wapo.st/2PGoHkz?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.c842c2a7a6d4

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III wrote a letter in late March complaining to Attorney General William P. Barr that a four-page memo to Congress describing the principal conclusions of the investigation into President Trump “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of Mueller’s work, according to a copy of the letter reviewed Tuesday by The Washington Post.
At the time the letter was sent on March 27, Barr had announced that Mueller had not found a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian officials seeking to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. Barr also said Mueller had not reached a conclusion about whether Trump had tried to obstruct justice, but Barr reviewed the evidence and found it insufficient to support such a charge.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is not going to bode well for William Barr. Robert Mueller will have to be called to appear before Congress, that's a sure thing now.

Why would that happen without any proofs?

 

[HumblePi]

just in Barnes and Noble....Mueller Report in paperback $15..unreadable...one big pile of **** with a $30,000,000.00 price tag

Not really, properties and investment accounts valued at about $26.7 million seized that Manafort has been forced to give up as part of plea agreement with Mueller's team. Included in the package of New York real estate is a $7.3 million compound in the Hamptons and a $3.8 million apartment in Manhattan's Trump Tower. In addition to Manafort's fortune, the government stands to collect about $1.9 million from other people charged as a result of Mueller's investigation. The U.S. government may actually see a net gain from the investigation.

 

[HumblePi]

I've yet to hear an explanation as to why.

Barr offered access to a less-redacted version of the report to just 12 members of Congress The unredacted report has not been released by William Barr yet. Congress is waiting for the full report from Barr and if they don't get it, they will hold Barr in contempt of Congress.

 

[Athanasius68]

Barr offered access to a less-redacted version of the report to just 12 members of Congress The unredacted report has not been released by William Barr yet. Congress is waiting for the full report from Barr and if they don't get it, they will hold Barr in contempt of Congress.

Congress can solve that problem by changing the law to permit Congress access to grand jury testimony from a special counsel investigation.

 

[tres borrachos]

But the less redacted report was made available to members of Congress, albeit just those on the Judiciary Committee. The fact that none of the Democrats on that Committee chose to review the unredacted parts seems significant to me.

On the claim Barr seeks to delay, this isn’t evident from his handling of the Report, he put out a quick summary of the two legal conclusions (no collusion and no decision on obstruction), then 3 weeks later delivered the redacted Report. Democrats complain the 3 weeks provided Trump a PR advantage as he touted “no collusion”, but we should consider Mueller knew redactions would be required, was asked to render these himself, but chose not to. Those 3 weeks could have been shortened if Mueller had delivered a Report that could be immediately made public. Barr had announced he would make the Report available to the public and Mueller knew that at least the grand jury material could not be lawfully disclosed.

If Barr wants to delay he can, and this could have an adverse effect on Democrats in impeachment efforts since they seek the material Mueller relied on to draft his Report. We don’t know what is in that material, but there are likely a variety of legal arguments to support maintaining the secrecy of grand juries, concealing sources and methods in intelligence gathering, protecting information about ancillary third parties, and impeding disclosure of matters still under investigation or referred to other agencies.

While Barr and Congress battle in court over the release of everything Mueller considered, Democrats will have to deal with the public perception as they campaign for election that they’ve become obsessed with Trump and ignore those ‘kitchen table’ issues their constituents would like to see them work on instead (immigration, healthcare, gun control...). All the while Trump will be repeating that “no collusion” and likely suggesting it is time to deal with issues other than this Democrat obsession.

Of course you can back that part up, that none of the Democrats "chose to review the redacted parts".

 

[tres borrachos]

What a dumb response. You seem to know a lot about the availability of the less redacted report. Its interesting you didn't respond with the simple truth that ZERO Democrats have read the less redacted report. Even though they say they want to see everything they have not taken the time to see everything available to them. Republicans have gone to the SKIF and read the less redacted versions of the report but not Democrats. The only thing still redacted is the Grand Jury testimony which Barr is prohibited by law in releasing. Now if the Democrats still want to see that let them make a law that releases Grand Jury testimony. Otherwise they need to shut up.

The availability of the "less redacted part" has been in the news for the last week. Why doesn't it shock me at all to see that you didn't know that.

"simple truth that ZERO Democrats have read the less redacted report". Of course you can back that part up. And no, a link to Politico from one week ago isn't proof. You need to show proof today that none of the Democrats have read it. I'll wait.