Muller report AG new conference

[spence]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

So you saw nothing in the mueller report suggesting obstruction? You need to get some reading glasses, CVS or job lot have them pretty cheap. I find it ironic that you constantly hold up the founding fathers intent and distain for government over reach, yet you are ok with clear over reach and obstruction by the executive branch of our government. No need to respond, I’m pretty sure I have your number and can predict your response. The new norm for our government should concern us all.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

^^^ this
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

So you saw nothing in the mueller report suggesting obstruction?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

how can you obstruct an investigation into collusion that never existed?

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

how can you obstruct an investigation into collusion that never existed?

Maybe you could think about this one for a bit.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Maybe you could think about this one for a bit.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

right he was obstructing injustice

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

So you saw nothing in the mueller report suggesting obstruction? You need to get some reading glasses, CVS or job lot have them pretty cheap. I find it ironic that you constantly hold up the founding fathers intent and distain for government over reach, yet you are ok with clear over reach and obstruction by the executive branch of our government. No need to respond, I’m pretty sure I have your number and can predict your response. The new norm for our government should concern us all.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Plenty of evidence that Trump was being a vindictive baby as always. Mueller chose not to indict, which is exculpatory. If it was "clear obstruction", why didn't Mueller choose to indict?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

^^^ this
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Mueller chose not to indict. I heard for two years, that Mueller was the final word. That is exculpatory.

Can we at least conclude that you are no longer shrieking about collusion, that you have at least moved on to obstruction?

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Plenty of evidence that Trump was being a vindictive baby as always. Mueller chose not to indict, which is exculpatory. If it was "clear obstruction", why didn't Mueller choose to indict?

Policy and tradition you can’t indite a sitting president, I guess you have not been paying attention.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

So you saw nothing in the mueller report suggesting obstruction? You need to get some reading glasses, CVS or job lot have them pretty cheap. I find it ironic that you constantly hold up the founding fathers intent and distain for government over reach, yet you are ok with clear over reach and obstruction by the executive branch of our government. No need to respond, I’m pretty sure I have your number and can predict your response. The new norm for our government should concern us all.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Suggesting obstruction is not conclusive obstruction. There was not sufficient evidence to conclude obstruction.

[Got Stripers]

Was the one or two suggested instances 🙄🙄🙄
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Was the one or two suggested instances 🙄🙄🙄
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Apparently not any of the instances. You bring up the supposed bit that a sitting president cannot be indicted. That has not been adjudicated to be true. Neither does that stop Mueller from concluding that Trump obstructed justice. If he was, by law, prevented from making a conclusion, then what was the point of investigating Trump. If he had found sufficient evidence to conclude that Trump conspired with Russia, would he have been handcuffed by the sitting president bit from making such a conclusion.

[Got Stripers]

Policy isn’t law, but it is followed non the less, he put it to congress to make the determination after laying out all the evidence. Trumps trump card of course is is newly appointed defense console Barr.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Policy isn’t law, but it is followed non the less, he put it to congress to make the determination after laying out all the evidence. Trumps trump card of course is is newly appointed defense console Barr.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Neither policy nor law prevented Mueller from concluding that Trump obstructed justice.

[Got Stripers]

Keep beating that drum I’m not buying into your view and Barr is an embarrassment. Do you agree with his opinion the president can’t be investigated and if he felt he is wrongly accused, he has the right to terminate the investigation. So we have an AG who believes the president is above the law, which couldn’t be more clear from his letter auditioning for the job, his mis representation of the report and the testimony today. Again I love the fact you constantly bring up the intent of the founding fathers, if that is the case then you would agree Congress should be allowed to do it’s job and we will see if there really is nothing there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

did Barrs letter say there was no corruption? Or did it say there was insufficient evidence to charge with obstruction? If Barr said the latter, well, that’s true.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

I don’t believe Barr is truthfully representing us and so I give his words little credence, he is a hired defense attorney.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Keep beating that drum I’m not buying into your view and Barr is an embarrassment.

I'm not beating a drum. I'm merely responding to various accusations and opinions. You could say I'm responding to various drum beats. You can dispute my view, you don't have to buy into it. I certainly wouldn't try to dissuade you from being embarrassed.

Do you agree with his opinion the president can’t be investigated and if he felt he is wrongly accused, he has the right to terminate the investigation. So we have an AG who believes the president is above the law, which couldn’t be more clear from his letter auditioning for the job, his mis representation of the report and the testimony today.

I haven't followed this line of reasoning. Don't have an opinion about it. Just been commenting on the conclusions and lack of them in the Muller report.

Again I love the fact you constantly bring up the intent of the founding fathers, if that is the case then you would agree Congress should be allowed to do it’s job and we will see if there really is nothing there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm glad you love something I may have said. I do mention the Founding Fathers from time to time. Haven't brought them up in this discussion. I think I focus more on their Constitution and what it actually says rather then on what their intent was.

I certainly agree that Congress should do its job. I think that it often prefers to do other things than what is specified as its job in the Constitution. I don't think it should be doing those things, but many, including on this forum, are quite happy that it is constantly doing stuff even if its not supposed to do it. Although everybody seems not to like Congress putting us deeper and deeper into debt, even though the stuff they like which Congress is not supposed to do is much of which puts us deeper and deeper into debt.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

if that is the case then you would agree Congress should be allowed to do it’s job and we will see if there really is nothing there.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

is it the job of Congress to harass a sitting President through his entire term?...because this is nothing more than juvenile harassment and hissy fits which all began with the democrat's nominee paying a law firm to dig dirt on her opponent and create a phony dossier which led to an investigation of supposed crimes which we now know never occurred...

but keep whining about Trump obstruction

the "crime" is that there was ever a collusion investigation in the first place

[scottw]

hey, so when the Trump campaign pays a law firm to dig dirt on whoever the dems finally decide to roll out there and then create a phony crime via a "dossier" and begin investigating, secretly taping and interrogating the dem nominee and those associated with him/her through the Barr Justice Department..you guys are ok with that right? Because that will be great fun!

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Keep beating that drum I’m not buying into your view and Barr is an embarrassment. Do you agree with his opinion the president can’t be investigated and if he felt he is wrongly accused, he has the right to terminate the investigation. So we have an AG who believes the president is above the law, which couldn’t be more clear from his letter auditioning for the job, his mis representation of the report and the testimony today. Again I love the fact you constantly bring up the intent of the founding fathers, if that is the case then you would agree Congress should be allowed to do it’s job and we will see if there really is nothing there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if you believe Barr lied to protect the president ( which is certainly possible), could
you please tell us exactly what Barr said in his letter, which is contradicted by whats in the Mueller report?

Barr knew the report was going to be made public, so he’d have to be pretty short sighted to blatantly contradict it. Maybe he did.

It would sure be nice if we could see a screen shot of what's in the report, and whats in the letter, that contradict each other.

anything short of that is an
opinion, right?

we have the report, we have the letter. where are the contradictions?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

if you believe Barr lied to protect the president ( which is certainly possible), could
you please tell us exactly what Barr said in his letter, which is contradicted by whats in the Mueller report?

Barr knew the report was going to be made public, so he’d have to be pretty short sighted to blatantly contradict it. Maybe he did.

It would sure be nice if we could see a screen shot of what's in the report, and whats in the letter, that contradict each other.

anything short of that is an
opinion, right?

we have the report, we have the letter. where are the contradictions?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Barrs letter has summaries written by him which differ substantially from the Executive summaries in the Mueller report and are far kinder to Trump.

Because of the formatting I found it is difficult to cut and paste the documents here. The Mueller report was not released in a convenient format to be searchable. https://www.pdfa.org/a-technical-and...er-report-pdf/

Here is Barrs letter, his summaries are on page 2 and 3
https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...nd-Senate.html

Here is Muellers report, the executive summaries he prepared and which required no further redaction, are on pages in the pdf viewer 12-18 and 215-220.
https://apps.npr.org/documents/docum...-Muellerreport

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Barrs letter has summaries written by him which differ substantially from the Executive summaries in the Mueller report and are far kinder to Trump.

Because of the formatting I found it is difficult to cut and paste the documents here. The Mueller report was not released in a convenient format to be searchable. https://www.pdfa.org/a-technical-and...er-report-pdf/

Here is Barrs letter, his summaries are on page 2 and 3
https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...nd-Senate.html

Here is Muellers report, the executive summaries he prepared and which required no further redaction, are on pages in the pdf viewer 12-18 and 215-220.
https://apps.npr.org/documents/docum...-Muellerreport

Just tell us very specifically what's in the Mueller report, which flatly contradicts what Barr summarized. People can reach different conclusions, that's not necessary a lie.

It's being reported that Mueller called Barr, and told him that his conclusions were not inaccurate.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Just tell us very specifically what's in the Mueller report, which flatly contradicts what Barr summarized. People can reach different conclusions, that's not necessary a lie.

It's being reported that Mueller called Barr, and told him that his conclusions were not inaccurate.

Did you not read the Mueller report?

It's not what he said, it's what he did not say. The summaries were already prepared by the Mueller team and not used. Instead he quoted portions of paragraphs and spun the narrative.

FROM WILLIAM P. BARR

“In making this determination, we noted that the special counsel recognized that ‘the evidence does not establish that the president was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,’ and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the president’s intent with respect to obstruction.”

FROM ROBERT S. MUELLER III

Vol. II, Page 157: Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect noncriminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment. The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong. In this investigation, the evidence does not establish that the president was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. But the evidence does point to a range of other possible personal motives animating the president’s conduct. These include concerns that continued investigation would call into question the legitimacy of his election and potential uncertainty about whether certain events — such as advance notice of WikiLeaks’ release of hacked information or the June 9, 2016, meeting between senior campaign officials and Russians could be seen as criminal activity by the president, his campaign or his family.

FROM WILLIAM P. BARR

“The special counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: ‘[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.’”

FROM ROBERT S. MUELLER III

Vol. I, Page 1: The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Did you not read the Mueller report?

It's not what he said, it's what he did not say.

good grief....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Did you not read the Mueller report?

It's not what he said, it's what he did not say. The summaries were already prepared by the Mueller team and not used. Instead he quoted portions of paragraphs and spun the narrative.

FROM WILLIAM P. BARR

“In making this determination, we noted that the special counsel recognized that ‘the evidence does not establish that the president was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,’ and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the president’s intent with respect to obstruction.”

FROM ROBERT S. MUELLER III

Vol. II, Page 157: Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect noncriminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment. The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong. In this investigation, the evidence does not establish that the president was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. But the evidence does point to a range of other possible personal motives animating the president’s conduct. These include concerns that continued investigation would call into question the legitimacy of his election and potential uncertainty about whether certain events — such as advance notice of WikiLeaks’ release of hacked information or the June 9, 2016, meeting between senior campaign officials and Russians could be seen as criminal activity by the president, his campaign or his family.

FROM WILLIAM P. BARR

“The special counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: ‘[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.’”

FROM ROBERT S. MUELLER III

Vol. I, Page 1: The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

i am
sorry, maybe i’m having a slow day. when i compare what you have in bold between the two, i see a lot
of similarities.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

it's not what he cut and pasted......it's what he did not cut and paste

understand now?!!

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

good grief....

Maybe if I couch it in simple terms you could understand.

Your wife would be fine if you told her you were going for a drink after work, but you neglected to tell her it is with an old girlfriend.

Think she would be fine with that?

Hey, you didn't lie and you told her what you were doing.

Barr could have released the already redacted Executive summaries that were contained in the Mueller report, but people would have read them.

Not the same as the spin he released, that just omitted what didn't fit the desired narrative.

There is lots more there if you took the time to read the report.

FROM WILLIAM P. BARR

“In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the special counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign ‘coordinated’ with Russian election interference activities. The special counsel defined ‘coordination’ as an ‘agreement — tacit or express — between the Trump campaign and the Russian government on election interference.’”

FROM ROBERT S. MUELLER III

Vol. I, Page 2: We understood coordination to require an agreement — tacit or express — between the Trump campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests.

FROM WILLIAM P. BARR

“After making a ‘thorough factual investigation’ into these matters, the special counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment.”

FROM ROBERT S. MUELLER III

Vol. II, Page 2: Second, while the O.L.C. opinion concludes that a sitting president may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the president’s term is permissible. The O.L.C. opinion also recognizes that a president does not have immunity after he leaves office. And if individuals other than the president committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.

FROM WILLIAM P. BARR

“The special counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the special counsel views as ‘difficult issues’ of law and fact concerning whether the president’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The special counsel states that ‘while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’”


FROM ROBERT S. MUELLER III

Vol. II, Page 2: Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the president’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

Vol. II, Page 8: Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the president’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the president’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

Just remember that in his letter to Congress, Mr. Barr did not explain that Mr. Mueller was trying to leave open the possibility that prosecutors in the future, after Mr. Trump leaves office, could look at the evidence he gathered and decide then whether to indict Mr. Trump. That stemmed from the view of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, that sitting presidents cannot be indicted but former presidents lose such immunity. That conflicted with Mr. Barr’s desire to pronounce Mr. Trump cleared now.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Barr knew the report was going to be made public, so he’d have to be pretty short sighted to blatantly contradict it. Maybe he did.

It's all part of a misinformation strategy to protect Trump.

First off they nominate an AG who advertised himself as a champion of executive branch authority specifically around obstruction. He was hired to do this.

Yes, he knew bottling up the report would create an outcry, so they spun the findings with the 4 pager to let Trump take his victory lap and manipulate public opinion. This was so unsettling to the investigators it prompted several to speak out and for Mueller to write more that one formal letters scolding Barr.

Even Chris Wallace -- perhaps the most credible journalist working today -- spoke out against his own network over the issue.

“But, you know, we have to deal in facts. And the fact is that this letter from the special counsel, and it was one of at least three contacts with the Attorney General between March 25 and March 27, was a clear indication that the [special counsel] was upset, very upset, with the letter that had been sent out by the Attorney General, and wanted it changed, or wanted it at least added to and the Attorney General refused to do so,” he continued. “He felt the Attorney General’s letter was inaccurate.”

https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-chris-wallace-warns-own-networks-bias-opinion-people-fox-may-be-1412304

Barr even lied during House testimony about this exact issue. He misled about the President fully cooperating, he's fundamentally misrepresented much of the report and has failed to admit anything in it critical to the President when questioned. Trump has shown if they can just confuse the heck out of everyone and charge forward it's very difficult to pin them down.

This is where the US Constitution is supposed to be the firewall, but the AG is working to undermine the rule of law. He needs to go...

[scottw]

I'm sorry that you are so disappointed...I know how much you had invested in Trump's demise...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

This is where the US Constitution is supposed to be the firewall, but the AG is working to undermine the rule of law. He needs to go...

meh....it's an outdated document written by old white racists

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Maybe if I couch it in simple terms you could understand.

Your wife would be fine if you told her you were going for a drink after work, but you neglected to tell her it is with an old girlfriend.

Think she would be fine with that?

I'm pretty sure it wouldn't end with her running around sky-screaming "NOT MY HUSBAND!!!!"

also pretty sure I'd spend a couple of nights on the couch, but not 2 years and counting