Background on William Barr

[wiede]

https://www.justsecurity.org/63635/...-omitting-parts-of-justice-dept-memo-in-1989/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/04/william-barr-mueller-report-summary/amp

https://www.salon.com/2019/03/26/cover-up-attorney-general-bill-barr-strikes-again_partner/

The first two detail how he misrepresented details of a memo to congress- during his first stint as AG. And that’s being kind. He flat out lied, and it wasn’t discovered until 3 years later when the full report saw the light of day. And he titled his summary IN THE EXACT SAME TERMS as his summary letter he released on the Mueller report.

The last details how he prevented folks involved in Iran- Contra from being prosecuted.

This guy has literally dove on grenades for two different republican presidents. Then he auditioned to work for a third- and it worked. His 19 page memo ought to have been a HUGE red flag.

And then he dove on a third grenade for Trump, by not releasing summaries that the Mueller team prepared, instead opting to release a puff piece for Trump that set the narrative before it was released. Even though it was congress’s role to decide how the report should be viewed.

In other words, he clearly stacked the deck, usurping the role of congress & used a different standard to evaluate Trump. Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is a MUCH tougher standard that showing “high crimes and misdemeanors”.

And, he’s refusing to go to a court to ask to release the full report (and underlying materials) to congress- apparently they’re going to see exactly what you and I will see.

It’s pretty clear he lacks the thing/makeup that makes you embarrassed, much like his current boss. Apparently that also includes the ability to feel shame.

And, it also shows that he’s all about covering for folks- to hell with the law, and his reputation. And the guy is going for broke this time.

All that being said, I truly hope he doesn’t go waaaay overboard on his redactions. But I truly fear the Mueller report will end up being the Barr report.

He’s been here before, taken the exam- and was caught cheating on it- twice. But after the fact, so what he did was largely forgotten. I’m here today to remind ya’ll.

Fingers crossed that it won’t be this way. But, if I were a betting man, I’d bet that it will be this way. The guy simply isn’t trustworthy. Yes, the independent counsel device was out of control because it unleashed investigations that were uncontrollable and never ending. However, this arrangement (a hand picked AG literally has the ability to stifle the results of an investigation) isn’t the right approach either.

Here’s how you can know whether Barr is pulling act 3 tomorrow- IF the report is butchered all to hell (beyond just the grand jury stuff, which will likely be substantial), then you know what’s going on. Like W. once said, fool me once, we won’t get fooled again! Only, this would be at least twice, and really three times.

And before some of you start calling me nuts, I’d like for you to read the first two articles and tell me if they reveal the work of an honest broker.

If you feel it is, please justify what he did. I’d like for this to be an actual discussion, and not an exercise in whataboutism, name calling and deflection.

 

[Standard Issue]

https://www.justsecurity.org/63635/...-omitting-parts-of-justice-dept-memo-in-1989/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/04/william-barr-mueller-report-summary/amp

https://www.salon.com/2019/03/26/cover-up-attorney-general-bill-barr-strikes-again_partner/

The first two detail how he misrepresented details of a memo to congress- during his first stint as AG. And that’s being kind. He flat out lied, and it wasn’t discovered until 3 years later when the full report saw the light of day. And he titled his summary IN THE EXACT SAME TERMS as his summary letter he released on the Mueller report.

The last details how he prevented folks involved in Iran- Contra from being prosecuted.

This guy has literally dove on grenades for two different republican presidents. Then he auditioned to work for a third- and it worked. His 19 page memo ought to have been a HUGE red flag.

And then he dove on a third grenade for Trump, by not releasing summaries that the Mueller team prepared, instead opting to release a puff piece for Trump that set the narrative before it was released. Even though it was congress’s role to decide how the report should be viewed.

In other words, he clearly stacked the deck, usurping the role of congress & used a different standard to evaluate Trump. Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is a MUCH tougher standard that showing “high crimes and misdemeanors”.

And, he’s refusing to go to a court to ask to release the full report (and underlying materials) to congress- apparently they’re going to see exactly what you and I will see.

It’s pretty clear he lacks the thing/makeup that makes you embarrassed, much like his current boss. Apparently that also includes the ability to feel shame.

And, it also shows that he’s all about covering for folks- to hell with the law, and his reputation. And the guy is going for broke this time.

All that being said, I truly hope he doesn’t go waaaay overboard on his redactions. But I truly fear the Mueller report will end up being the Barr report.

He’s been here before, taken the exam- and was caught cheating on it- twice. But after the fact, so what he did was largely forgotten. I’m here today to remind ya’ll.

Fingers crossed that it won’t be this way. But, if I were a betting man, I’d bet that it will be this way. The guy simply isn’t trustworthy. Yes, the independent counsel device was out of control because it unleashed investigations that were uncontrollable and never ending. However, this arrangement (a hand picked AG literally has the ability to stifle the results of an investigation) isn’t the right approach either.

Here’s how you can know whether Barr is pulling act 3 tomorrow- IF the report is butchered all to hell (beyond just the grand jury stuff, which will likely be substantial), then you know what’s going on. Like W. once said, fool me once, we won’t get fooled again! Only, this would be at least twice, and really three times.

And before some of you start calling me nuts, I’d like for you to read the first two articles and tell me if they reveal the work of an honest broker.

If you feel it is, please justify what he did. I’d like for this to be an actual discussion, and not an exercise in whataboutism, name calling and deflection.

I said it before and I'll say it again: "He is trump's last attempt at obstruction of justice."

 

[UncleMark]

Here’s how you can know whether Barr is pulling act 3 tomorrow- IF the report is butchered all to hell (beyond just the grand jury stuff, which will likely be substantial), then you know what’s going on. Like W. once said, fool me once, we won’t get fooled again! Only, this would be at least twice, and really three times.

Look for the green redactions. That's the color he's using for the embarrassing stuff.

 

[SNU0821]

https://www.justsecurity.org/63635/...-omitting-parts-of-justice-dept-memo-in-1989/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/04/william-barr-mueller-report-summary/amp

https://www.salon.com/2019/03/26/cover-up-attorney-general-bill-barr-strikes-again_partner/

The first two detail how he misrepresented details of a memo to congress- during his first stint as AG. And that’s being kind. He flat out lied, and it wasn’t discovered until 3 years later when the full report saw the light of day. And he titled his summary IN THE EXACT SAME TERMS as his summary letter he released on the Mueller report.

The last details how he prevented folks involved in Iran- Contra from being prosecuted.

This guy has literally dove on grenades for two different republican presidents. Then he auditioned to work for a third- and it worked. His 19 page memo ought to have been a HUGE red flag.

And then he dove on a third grenade for Trump, by not releasing summaries that the Mueller team prepared, instead opting to release a puff piece for Trump that set the narrative before it was released. Even though it was congress’s role to decide how the report should be viewed.

In other words, he clearly stacked the deck, usurping the role of congress & used a different standard to evaluate Trump. Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is a MUCH tougher standard that showing “high crimes and misdemeanors”.

And, he’s refusing to go to a court to ask to release the full report (and underlying materials) to congress- apparently they’re going to see exactly what you and I will see.

It’s pretty clear he lacks the thing/makeup that makes you embarrassed, much like his current boss. Apparently that also includes the ability to feel shame.

And, it also shows that he’s all about covering for folks- to hell with the law, and his reputation. And the guy is going for broke this time.

All that being said, I truly hope he doesn’t go waaaay overboard on his redactions. But I truly fear the Mueller report will end up being the Barr report.

He’s been here before, taken the exam- and was caught cheating on it- twice. But after the fact, so what he did was largely forgotten. I’m here today to remind ya’ll.

Fingers crossed that it won’t be this way. But, if I were a betting man, I’d bet that it will be this way. The guy simply isn’t trustworthy. Yes, the independent counsel device was out of control because it unleashed investigations that were uncontrollable and never ending. However, this arrangement (a hand picked AG literally has the ability to stifle the results of an investigation) isn’t the right approach either.

Here’s how you can know whether Barr is pulling act 3 tomorrow- IF the report is butchered all to hell (beyond just the grand jury stuff, which will likely be substantial), then you know what’s going on. Like W. once said, fool me once, we won’t get fooled again! Only, this would be at least twice, and really three times.

And before some of you start calling me nuts, I’d like for you to read the first two articles and tell me if they reveal the work of an honest broker.

If you feel it is, please justify what he did. I’d like for this to be an actual discussion, and not an exercise in whataboutism, name calling and deflection.

My initial take is, with all of the fake news, spin, and hyper bipartisanship, why on earth would you think we should just believe a few articles written against Barr? I can likely go out and find two articles about Barr suggesting he's the best thing since sliced bread.

Two of the three articles are from Salon and Vanity Fair. Excuse me for not just assuming total accuracy and limited bias in either of those....

 

[wiede]

Look for the green redactions. That's the color he's using for the embarrassing stuff.

George Conway retweeted a brilliant observation (via Elie Honig) about the Barr “summary” letter. He noted that one of the partial sentences Barr quoted was missing the word before the quoted piece began.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sou...aw1c-QuJicPK1JldZ_mwLzlY&ust=1555602504414705

(Sorry for the long link- doing this on my phone).

Here’s a link to the tweet:



The tweet says:

Conway/Honig point out that a key word was omitted prior to this sentence: “(T)he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”


Barr omitted first part of that sentence. Want to bet it starts with “Although”?

The passage above is the first thing I’ll look for, along with the green redactions, of course. If the word omitted was indeed although or a similar word, it’ll be pretty clear that Barr was up to his old dirty tricks again. I want to trust him, I really do. He’s supposed to work for us, the American people. At this point, he’s already revealed himself to be a ringer for the president, hell bent on protecting him as much as he can. Whether it’s honest or not.

And, for the record, I will likely refer to the report that will be released tomorrow as the “Barr redacted Mueller report”, or BRMR for short. It may be decades before we actually see the real Mueller report. Again, I realize that law requires some of it to be redacted. That’s to be expected.

Just a heads up.

 

[SNU0821]

George Conway retweeted a brilliant observation (via Elie Honig) about the Barr “summary” letter. He noted that one of the partial sentences Barr quoted was missing the word before the quoted piece began.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiU5eGGvdfhAhUpgK0KHdeQAt4QzPwBegQIARAB&url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/george-conway-william-barr-mueller-report_n_5cb3f09be4b098b9a2d5a0ef&psig=AOvVaw1c-QuJicPK1JldZ_mwLzlY&ust=1555602504414705

(Sorry for the long link- doing this on my phone).

Here’s a link to the tweet:

View embedded media

The tweet says:

Conway/Honig point out that a key word was omitted prior to this sentence: “(T)he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”


Barr omitted first part of that sentence. Want to bet it starts with “Although”?

The passage above is the first thing I’ll look for, along with the green redactions, of course. If the word omitted was indeed although or a similar word, it’ll be pretty clear that Barr was up to his old dirty tricks again. I want to trust him, I really do. He’s supposed to work for us, the American people. At this point, he’s already revealed himself to be a ringer for the president, hell bent on protecting him as much as he can. Whether it’s honest or not.

And, for the record, I will likely refer to the report that will be released tomorrow as the “Barr redacted Mueller report”, or BRMR for short. It may be decades before we actually see the real Mueller report. Again, I realize that law requires some of it to be redacted. That’s to be expected.

Just a heads up.

George Conway? LOL! Keep doing you, man. I expect all Democrats to kick and scream tomorrow when the report is released. Every single one of them will cry foul and claim all the bad stuff is redacted. The other thing likely to happen is they will key in on something small and blow it out of proportion. The Dems have lost this battle but they're trying to save face (which isn't going well).

Republicans are likely to say there's no there there and Trump is completely exonerated.

 

[wiede]

My initial take is, with all of the fake news, spin, and hyper bipartisanship, why on earth would you think we should just believe a few articles written against Barr? I can likely go out and find two articles about Barr suggesting he's the best thing since sliced bread.

Two of the three articles are from Salon and Vanity Fair. Excuse me for not just assuming total accuracy and limited bias in either of those....

Care to address the substance?

Did he mislead or not?

To hell with the source. It’s not as if the stuff you likely consume is going to report these examples. Seriously.

Do you think they just made the story up? Or is it based in fact? That’s what I’m interested in seeing here. And if it is based in fact, was he justified in doing what he did?

Let’s keep this on track. Ad hominem attack’s aren’t going to fly in this thread.

Your turn. Please address the substance of the articles- which are based on stone cold facts. He did those things. How could they not be characterized as misleading? Was what he did justified in some way?

 

[UncleMark]

It may be decades before we actually see the real Mueller report.

I think it will be much sooner. The courts will weigh in quickly. In this case, I don't think you can go by past experience.

 

[wiede]

I think it will be much sooner. The courts will weigh in quickly. In this case, I don't think you can go by past experience.

I hope you’re right. In any event, it’s a risky calculus for Barr. The more be redacts, the more likely the full report comes out quicker.

And, I’m not as concerned with the public seeing the report. Congress should’ve already seen it by now- at least the key players or members of the intelligence committees. Ultimately, congress is the ultimate arbiter of what the report means. Not us, or Barr.

 

[wiede]

You've given yourself the answer.

I’m really tired of people that use the excuse of a source being “too biased” as a way to create their own reality.

These articles are based on facts- actual things that really happened. That’s how real journalism works. It seems some here have forgotten that there are ground rules for publishing stories like these. And, there are pretty severe consequences for violating those ground rules- or even making an honest mistake. Journalists that publish these stories are only as good as their last story- it can all change in an instant for them. See the reporters at CNN, for example. They screwed up, and paid the price. I wish that standard was enforced across the political spectrum. It’s clear that it isn’t.

SNU-

If the facts are faulty, show me. Otherwise, you aren’t contributing anything here. All you’re doing is parroting talking points, and fooling yourself into continuing to believe what you already believe.

Your turn (again). Let’s keep this on track.

 

[IUclover]

My initial take is, with all of the fake news, spin, and hyper bipartisanship, why on earth would you think we should just believe a few articles written against Barr? I can likely go out and find two articles about Barr suggesting he's the best thing since sliced bread.

Two of the three articles are from Salon and Vanity Fair. Excuse me for not just assuming total accuracy and limited bias in either of those....

Why did Trump fire Sessions and replace him with Barr right before the report was released? And why Barr?

 

[SNU0821]

I’m really tired of people that use the excuse of a source being “too biased” as a way to create their own reality.

These articles are based on facts- actual things that really happened. That’s how real journalism works. It seems some here have forgotten that there are ground rules for publishing stories like these. And, there are pretty severe consequences for violating those ground rules- or even making an honest mistake. Journalists that publish these stories are only as good as their last story- it can all change in an instant for them. See the reporters at CNN, for example. They screwed up, and paid the price. I wish that standard was enforced across the political spectrum. It’s clear that it isn’t.

SNU-

If the facts are faulty, show me. Otherwise, you aren’t contributing anything here. All you’re doing is parroting talking points, and fooling yourself into continuing to believe what you already believe.

Your turn (again). Let’s keep this on track.

You can be as tired of people labeling sources being too biased, I don't care. It doesn't mean it's not true. Are you honestly trying to tell me, with a straight face, the overall mainstream media as a whole, isn't overwhelmingly biased against Republicans/Conservatives? If so, I think we can be done here as you have bought hook, line and sinker into the garbage they're selling.

To answer your question, I don't believe Barr is misrepresenting anything in his memo. I find it hard to believe he would intentionally mislead people knowing the scrutiny his letter and the overall report would garner. I think people like yourself are hoping Barr misrepresented information in his summary and in the report because you want to believe the Russian collusion hoax. In a way, people are convinced there has to be more there there because afterall, we heard for two years there's so much smoke. Yeah, well, all that smoke seemed to be generated from the MSM and the Democrats and nothing more and certainly no fire. They're just trying to save face.

 

[VanPastorMan]

I said it before and I'll say it again: "He is trump's last attempt at obstruction of justice."

What are you going to say if the Mueller investigation is concluded and there is no collusion? If there is no collusion then there can't be any obstruction of justice because why would someone obstruct what doesn't exist?

 

[UncleMark]

If there is no collusion then there can't be any obstruction of justice because why would someone obstruct what doesn't exist?

That's not true.

 

[Cortez88]

What are you going to say if the Mueller investigation is concluded and there is no collusion? If there is no collusion then there can't be any obstruction of justice because why would someone obstruct what doesn't exist?

Person A is charged with murder. During the investigation, A intimidates witnesses and bribes others. At the conclusion of the murder investigation, A is not charged with the crime.

Did he obstruct justice?

 

[VanPastorMan]

That's not true.

Why would the President if innocent obstruct justice? It doesn't make sense. He is innocent by the way. If they had something on him it would have been brought forth already.

 

[VanPastorMan]

Person A is charged with murder. During the investigation, A intimidates witnesses and bribes others. At the conclusion of the murder investigation, A is not charged with the crime.

Did he obstruct justice?

I'd like to see how anything like that has been done in Trump's situation. He is innocent of the charge of collusion. Therefore he had no need of intimidating anyone. He is a man who speaks his mind. Pelosi has been commenting on the forthcoming report. Is she obstructing justice by making statements?

 

[Cajun54]

https://www.justsecurity.org/63635/...-omitting-parts-of-justice-dept-memo-in-1989/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/04/william-barr-mueller-report-summary/amp

https://www.salon.com/2019/03/26/cover-up-attorney-general-bill-barr-strikes-again_partner/

The first two detail how he misrepresented details of a memo to congress- during his first stint as AG. And that’s being kind. He flat out lied, and it wasn’t discovered until 3 years later when the full report saw the light of day. And he titled his summary IN THE EXACT SAME TERMS as his summary letter he released on the Mueller report.

The last details how he prevented folks involved in Iran- Contra from being prosecuted.

This guy has literally dove on grenades for two different republican presidents. Then he auditioned to work for a third- and it worked. His 19 page memo ought to have been a HUGE red flag.

And then he dove on a third grenade for Trump, by not releasing summaries that the Mueller team prepared, instead opting to release a puff piece for Trump that set the narrative before it was released. Even though it was congress’s role to decide how the report should be viewed.

In other words, he clearly stacked the deck, usurping the role of congress & used a different standard to evaluate Trump. Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is a MUCH tougher standard that showing “high crimes and misdemeanors”.

And, he’s refusing to go to a court to ask to release the full report (and underlying materials) to congress- apparently they’re going to see exactly what you and I will see.

It’s pretty clear he lacks the thing/makeup that makes you embarrassed, much like his current boss. Apparently that also includes the ability to feel shame.

And, it also shows that he’s all about covering for folks- to hell with the law, and his reputation. And the guy is going for broke this time.

All that being said, I truly hope he doesn’t go waaaay overboard on his redactions. But I truly fear the Mueller report will end up being the Barr report.

He’s been here before, taken the exam- and was caught cheating on it- twice. But after the fact, so what he did was largely forgotten. I’m here today to remind ya’ll.

Fingers crossed that it won’t be this way. But, if I were a betting man, I’d bet that it will be this way. The guy simply isn’t trustworthy. Yes, the independent counsel device was out of control because it unleashed investigations that were uncontrollable and never ending. However, this arrangement (a hand picked AG literally has the ability to stifle the results of an investigation) isn’t the right approach either.

Here’s how you can know whether Barr is pulling act 3 tomorrow- IF the report is butchered all to hell (beyond just the grand jury stuff, which will likely be substantial), then you know what’s going on. Like W. once said, fool me once, we won’t get fooled again! Only, this would be at least twice, and really three times.

And before some of you start calling me nuts, I’d like for you to read the first two articles and tell me if they reveal the work of an honest broker.

If you feel it is, please justify what he did. I’d like for this to be an actual discussion, and not an exercise in whataboutism, name calling and deflection.

The reads you linked are interesting. My thought on Barr is simply why would anyone with and ounce of intelligence create a summary that was totally untruthful or misleading knowing that if Mueller disagreed with the summary that he(Mueller) would immediately come forward personally and discount the summary and repudiate it?

You have repeatedly voiced approval of Mueller in the past and his rep and credibility and that of his staff and their ability to investigate without bias. Don't you have enough confidence in Mueller that he would have immediately done so as I suggested?

I am not suggesting that Barr lied, veiled or whatever on the summary or that it is totally correct and it is certainly possible he did mislead in his summary. I just find it difficult to believe that he would lie or mislead knowing Mueller would see it and respond accordingly as I suggested. Mueller has not.

A big "what if". What if the report when released confirms the Barr summary as well as pointing out that they believe there was no collusion or were unable to prove collusion with supporting documentation?

What if Mueller also includes distressing facts regarding the dossier and questions the FISA warrants and the validity of the dossier and material of that nature unrelated to actions by Trump or his campaign etc and directed at leadership in the Justice Dept and FBI? I am almost certain that it will not happen but again what if it did?

It's almost a certainty that both sides of the aisle will find elements of the report to declare victory or to question and accuse. It's a certainty that the left will accuse Barr of protecting Trump with his redactions.

Another "what if". If and when the redacted portions are opened up and viewed and it confirms Trump and his campaigns innocence of the accusations will this then be the end of it or will those such as yourself who have supported Mueller and voiced approval and confidence is his ability then turn on him as the left has on Barr?

In my own personal opinion I think there will be issues found skirting on the accusations but difficult to prove for numerous reasons. I don't think it will exonerate Trump but they felt they couldn't prove it sufficiently. I am not a lawyer and will leave this to the legal minds to discuss. People like Schiff and Swallwell who have constantly claimed to have proof and have yet to come forward with it are as annoying as hell. If you have it bring it forward!

I know "what ifs" are annoying etc but the whole debate on this issue past and present have essentially been what if this happens or is proven..................We citizens are only privy to the material provided by biased reporting on both sides of the aisle. People interpret reality in a way that conforms to their biases and that is a fact. Partisans live in two different worlds with what is termed motivated reasoning. I am guilty as are about all of us.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

What are you going to say if the Mueller investigation is concluded and there is no collusion? If there is no collusion then there can't be any obstruction of justice because why would someone obstruct what doesn't exist?

Technically, this isn’t correct. However, in this instance, IF the investigation did indeed find that no crimes were committed, it would be almost impossible to prove intent.

Especially when there were valid reasons for the actions taken AND the actions didn’t interfere in the investigation in any way.

 

[wiede]

You can be as tired of people labeling sources being too biased, I don't care. It doesn't mean it's not true. Are you honestly trying to tell me, with a straight face, the overall mainstream media as a whole, isn't overwhelmingly biased against Republicans/Conservatives? If so, I think we can be done here as you have bought hook, line and sinker into the garbage they're selling.

To answer your question, I don't believe Barr is misrepresenting anything in his memo. I find it hard to believe he would intentionally mislead people knowing the scrutiny his letter and the overall report would garner. I think people like yourself are hoping Barr misrepresented information in his summary and in the report because you want to believe the Russian collusion hoax. In a way, people are convinced there has to be more there there because afterall, we heard for two years there's so much smoke. Yeah, well, all that smoke seemed to be generated from the MSM and the Democrats and nothing more and certainly no fire. They're just trying to save face.

Actually, I hope he’s very transparent. So we can evaluate Mueller’s report well. But, I doubt he will. Based on his past behavior. And it’s not as if he’s shown signals that he’ll be more transparent and less partisan. His usage of the word “spy” as ridiculous, and the over the top partisan. And again, he literally auditioned for his current role with an unsolicited memo basically saying that it’s impossible to charge a sitting president with obstruction.

Those are also facts. No one in the intelligence community considers court sanctioned surveillance as “spying”. The right wing media may see it that way- but it’s not reality.

Quite frankly, I’m appalled by Barr’s behavior to this point.

And, no one has dared to try to explain why the articles that show what Barr did in the past are “biased”. They reported what happened then, and what was discovered later. Those were two very different things.

The facts are the facts. You’re conflating bias, with what is in the public record re: Barr not being forthright and honest about something he wrote (or was heavily involved in) to cover for a president.

Do you have anything that refutes the FACTS of the record? If not, then we must conclude that Barr is likely to be very biased, and deceptive. Because he’s had a very analogous situation, and he essentially lied to Congress at that point. And he has taken actions since he’s been AG again that point to him not being an honest actor.

Show me something, anything, that shows what Barr did in the past was on the up and up. Please. And no whatabouts, please. I sense one of those coming after this post.

Again, let’s stay on target.

You guys like to use “the liberal MSM!!!” tag as a way to conveniently ignore bad acts and bad actors. You’re entitled to your opinion. You’re not entitled to your own facts. Those aren’t malleable.

PS- if the report isn’t butchered all to hell, I’ll be the first to come on here and admit that my fear was unfounded. Again, I’d GREATLY prefer to know what Mueller found. I’ve said from the beginning that I’d fully accept whatever he’s found.

 

[SNU0821]

Actually, I hope he’s very transparent. So we can evaluate Mueller’s report well. But, I doubt he will. Based on his past behavior. And it’s not as if he’s shown signals that he’ll be more transparent and less partisan. His usage of the word “spy” as ridiculous, and the over the top partisan. And again, he literally auditioned for his current role with an unsolicited memo basically saying that it’s impossible to charge a sitting president with obstruction.

Those are also facts. No one in the intelligence community considers court sanctioned surveillance as “spying”. The right wing media may see it that way- but it’s not reality.

Quite frankly, I’m appalled by Barr’s behavior to this point.

And, no one has dared to try to explain why the articles that show what Barr did in the past are “biased”. They reported what happened then, and what was discovered later. Those were two very different things.

The facts are the facts. You’re conflating bias, with what is in the public record re: Barr not being forthright and honest about something he wrote (or was heavily involved in) to cover for a president.

Do you have anything that refutes the FACTS of the record? If not, then we must conclude that Barr is likely to be very biased, and deceptive. Because he’s had a very analogous situation, and he essentially lied to Congress at that point. And he has taken actions since he’s been AG again that point to him not being an honest actor.

Show me something, anything, that shows what Barr did in the past was on the up and up. Please. And no whatabouts, please. I sense one of those coming after this post.

Again, let’s stay on target.

You guys like to use “the liberal MSM!!!” tag as a way to conveniently ignore bad acts and bad actors. You’re entitled to your opinion. You’re not entitled to your own facts. Those aren’t malleable.

PS- if the report isn’t butchered all to hell, I’ll be the first to come on here and admit that my fear was unfounded. Again, I’d GREATLY prefer to know what Mueller found. I’ve said from the beginning that I’d fully accept whatever he’s found.

Dude, this is laughable. You sound like you’re preparing for an MSNBC audition. Speaking of your own facts, Man. You’ve bought hook, line and sinker.

 

[SNU0821]

Just to follow up...You’re already convinced that the redactions, which are outlined by precedent and law, are covering up something bad. The reason you, the MSM and the Democrats are doing that is because everyone told us there was 100% collusion. Heard it for two years. Now we know with certainty there wasn’t any collusion with Russia. Barr and Rosenstein already determined there wasn’t any chargeable obstruction. The game is over. Now you’re pivoting to something, anything else to point to in order to try and “get” Trump.

I encourage You to keep doing so. It’s just going to help in 2020. We appreciate your support in helping Trump get re-elected.

 

[zeke4ahs]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/us/politics/trump-mueller-report.html
This sounds kosher. As long as there isn’t a five minute meeting on the tarmac though, I’m sure it’s cool.

 

[SNU0821]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/us/politics/trump-mueller-report.html
This sounds kosher. As long as there isn’t a five minute meeting on the tarmac though, I’m sure it’s cool.

Stopped after I saw you posted something from The NY Times. Safe to say it’s fake news.

 

[IUclover]

Stopped after I saw you posted something from The NY Times. Safe to say it’s fake news.

Yet, republicans were quick to add articles from NYT, Vanity Fair, and other "fake news" liberal media outlets as submissions of support for their arguments during the Cohen hearing. Crazy how that works.

 

[Rockfish1]

The reads you linked are interesting. My thought on Barr is simply why would anyone with and ounce of intelligence create a summary that was totally untruthful or misleading knowing that if Mueller disagreed with the summary that he(Mueller) would immediately come forward personally and discount the summary and repudiate it?

You have repeatedly voiced approval of Mueller in the past and his rep and credibility and that of his staff and their ability to investigate without bias. Don't you have enough confidence in Mueller that he would have immediately done so as I suggested?

I am not suggesting that Barr lied, veiled or whatever on the summary or that it is totally correct and it is certainly possible he did mislead in his summary. I just find it difficult to believe that he would lie or mislead knowing Mueller would see it and respond accordingly as I suggested. Mueller has not.

A big "what if". What if the report when released confirms the Barr summary as well as pointing out that they believe there was no collusion or were unable to prove collusion with supporting documentation?

What if Mueller also includes distressing facts regarding the dossier and questions the FISA warrants and the validity of the dossier and material of that nature unrelated to actions by Trump or his campaign etc and directed at leadership in the Justice Dept and FBI? I am almost certain that it will not happen but again what if it did?

It's almost a certainty that both sides of the aisle will find elements of the report to declare victory or to question and accuse. It's a certainty that the left will accuse Barr of protecting Trump with his redactions.

Another "what if". If and when the redacted portions are opened up and viewed and it confirms Trump and his campaigns innocence of the accusations will this then be the end of it or will those such as yourself who have supported Mueller and voiced approval and confidence is his ability then turn on him as the left has on Barr?

In my own personal opinion I think there will be issues found skirting on the accusations but difficult to prove for numerous reasons. I don't think it will exonerate Trump but they felt they couldn't prove it sufficiently. I am not a lawyer and will leave this to the legal minds to discuss. People like Schiff and Swallwell who have constantly claimed to have proof and have yet to come forward with it are as annoying as hell. If you have it bring it forward!

I know "what ifs" are annoying etc but the whole debate on this issue past and present have essentially been what if this happens or is proven..................We citizens are only privy to the material provided by biased reporting on both sides of the aisle. People interpret reality in a way that conforms to their biases and that is a fact. Partisans live in two different worlds with what is termed motivated reasoning. I am guilty as are about all of us.

What we already know about Trump is disqualifying. Indeed, what we knew before we elected him was disqualifying. The Mueller report will add more bad stuff. And it still won’t matter to many of us.

No objective observer would regard Barr as an honest player. We can agree or disagree about how much circumstances will constrain him, but he obviously isn’t playing this straight up.

We know that Trump demands that his AG disregard the law. That’s why he fired Sessions, and he’s made clear he wants his own Roy Cohn. Trump hired Barr for a reason.

Nevertheless, arguments about Barr’s letter are senseless. Mueller’s report says whatever we’re allowed to know it says. Maybe we should defer judgment about what Mueller’s report says until we’ve seen at least some of it. A lot of embarrassingly stupid claims would never have been made if only there hadn’t been such overexuberant idiocy over Barr’s letter.

 

[UncleMark]

What we already know about Trump is disqualifying. Indeed, what we knew before we elected him was disqualifying. The Mueller report will add more bad stuff. And it still won’t matter to many of us.

I cling to the belief that there was a not insignificant portion of Trump voters who thought that the outrageous Trump they voted for was "Campaign Trump", and that once elected he'd morph into "Presidential Trump" and shake things up in DC, put competent people in place, and get shit done. I cling to the belief that those same people are dismayed at the shitshow we're now seeing, and will be happy to vote for any competent Democrat that can speak to them and their concerns.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Actually, I hope he’s very transparent. So we can evaluate Mueller’s report well. But, I doubt he will. Based on his past behavior. And it’s not as if he’s shown signals that he’ll be more transparent and less partisan. His usage of the word “spy” as ridiculous, and the over the top partisan. And again, he literally auditioned for his current role with an unsolicited memo basically saying that it’s impossible to charge a sitting president with obstruction.

Those are also facts. No one in the intelligence community considers court sanctioned surveillance as “spying”. The right wing media may see it that way- but it’s not reality.

Quite frankly, I’m appalled by Barr’s behavior to this point.

And, no one has dared to try to explain why the articles that show what Barr did in the past are “biased”. They reported what happened then, and what was discovered later. Those were two very different things.

The facts are the facts. You’re conflating bias, with what is in the public record re: Barr not being forthright and honest about something he wrote (or was heavily involved in) to cover for a president.

Do you have anything that refutes the FACTS of the record? If not, then we must conclude that Barr is likely to be very biased, and deceptive. Because he’s had a very analogous situation, and he essentially lied to Congress at that point. And he has taken actions since he’s been AG again that point to him not being an honest actor.

Show me something, anything, that shows what Barr did in the past was on the up and up. Please. And no whatabouts, please. I sense one of those coming after this post.

Again, let’s stay on target.

You guys like to use “the liberal MSM!!!” tag as a way to conveniently ignore bad acts and bad actors. You’re entitled to your opinion. You’re not entitled to your own facts. Those aren’t malleable.

PS- if the report isn’t butchered all to hell, I’ll be the first to come on here and admit that my fear was unfounded. Again, I’d GREATLY prefer to know what Mueller found. I’ve said from the beginning that I’d fully accept whatever he’s found.

This post is a bit melodramatic doncha think? There are no indictments of anybody for colluding, conspiracy, or obstruction. What Barr says means nothing. And it really makes no difference if there is “some” evidence in the report. Almost collusion is not collusion. Almost a conspiracy is not a conspiracy. Almost obstruction is not obstruction.

 

[Rockfish1]

Almost a conspiracy is not a conspiracy. Almost obstruction is not obstruction.

And almost killing Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown is not killing Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

And almost killing Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown is not killing Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.

WTF? Charges were brought against O.J and the jury acquitted. Mueller, and his team, many of whom were already immersed in the anti-Trump efforts, didn’t even bring charges against anybody concerning collusion, conspiracy, or obstruction.

 

[wiede]

Dude, this is laughable. You sound like you’re preparing for an MSNBC audition. Speaking of your own facts, Man. You’ve bought hook, line and sinker.

You still haven’t addressed the links. Props to Cajun- he did.

You got nothing.

And Barr’s actions tonight seal the deal re: Barr not being trustworthy. Since I started this thread, we’ve learned that:

A) He’s going to have a press conference BEFORE the report us released to anyone. That includes congress.

&

B) that after he said he didn’t speak to the White House about the report, it’s emerged that the White House has indeed been told about the report’s contents. You know, the group that was investigated. Presumably so they could prepare their rebuttal- to their “complete and total exoneration”.

This is an F’n joke. Barr has zero credibility- and he was hanging on by a thread before today.

&

C) Mueller’s spokesperson has made it clear he or members of his team will NOT be present. The second rebuttal of Barr and his ridiculous behavior to date. This is after they released very few public comments, and absolutely nothing leaked. That’s a shot at Barr- otherwise they would be there. Or at least not issue a statement.

Care to address the links, or Barr’s actions today?

 

[UncleMark]

Care to address the links, or Barr’s actions today?

You know you're howling at the moon, don't you?

 

[SNU0821]

You still haven’t addressed the links. Props to Cajun- he did.

You got nothing.

And Barr’s actions tonight seal the deal re: Barr not being trustworthy. Since I started this thread, we’ve learned that:

A) He’s going to have a press conference BEFORE the report us released to anyone. That includes congress.

&

B) that after he said he didn’t speak to the White House about the report, it’s emerged that the White House has indeed been told about the report’s contents. You know, the group that was investigated. Presumably so they could prepare their rebuttal- to their “complete and total exoneration”.

This is an F’n joke. Barr has zero credibility- and he was hanging on by a thread before today.

&

C) Mueller’s spokesperson has made it clear he or members of his team will NOT be present. The second rebuttal of Barr and his ridiculous behavior to date. This is after they released very few public comments, and absolutely nothing leaked. That’s a shot at Barr- otherwise they would be there. Or at least not issue a statement.

Care to address the links, or Barr’s actions today?

You DO realize that Mueller worked with him on the redactions, right? Hopefully? So do you reeeeeeealy think Barr AND Mueller are going to try and hide Trump Collusion?

This is getting dumber and dumber the closer to the report release date.

 

[Sope Creek]

You DO realize that Mueller worked with him on the redactions, right? Hopefully? So do you reeeeeeealy think Barr AND Mueller are going to try and hide Trump Collusion?

This is getting dumber and dumber the closer to the report release date.

I'd like to hear Mueller tell us what he thinks his team found, in public testimony and then in an open public hearing.

You wouldn't oppose that, would you SNU?

 

[SNU0821]

I'd like to hear Mueller tell us what he thinks his team found, in public testimony and then in an open public hearing.

You wouldn't oppose that, would you SNU?

Nope. He already told us there wasn’t any collusion. That’s good enough for me.

 

[Sope Creek]

Nope. He already told us there wasn’t any collusion. That’s good enough for me.

Well, it's not good enough for me.

I can be patient to get to the real truth, not the whitewash Barr is trying to sell us.

I ain't going away.

 

[UncleMark]

You still haven’t addressed the links. Props to Cajun- he did.

weide, I need a favor.

I want to put SNU on Ignore (I can only take so much stoopid), but if I do that I'm pretty sure that would also block your responses to him. I usually like your stuff, and would hate to miss out. Could you just stop replying to him? Or at least not reply directly through the Reply button or Quote? I've pledged to do the same, although I did slip up earlier this evening.

I'm actually going to ask everyone else to do the same. I only singled you out since you guys have been going back and forth quite a bit today.

 

[Sope Creek]

Nope. He already told us there wasn’t any collusion. That’s good enough for me.

BTW, if Trump was involved with Russian oligarchs to launder their money through sales of Trump's real estate transactions, what would your response be? Would you be ready to impeach Trump at that point? Would you favor prosecuting him?

I've always thought "collusion" was a red herring, given that Trump beat that canard to death as a means to distract the public from what he's most concerned about.

So let's see his dealings, open air and public. He's got nothing to hide, right?

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

Actually, I hope he’s very transparent. So we can evaluate Mueller’s report well. But, I doubt he will. Based on his past behavior. And it’s not as if he’s shown signals that he’ll be more transparent and less partisan. His usage of the word “spy” as ridiculous, and the over the top partisan. And again, he literally auditioned for his current role with an unsolicited memo basically saying that it’s impossible to charge a sitting president with obstruction.

Those are also facts. No one in the intelligence community considers court sanctioned surveillance as “spying”. The right wing media may see it that way- but it’s not reality.

Quite frankly, I’m appalled by Barr’s behavior to this point.

And, no one has dared to try to explain why the articles that show what Barr did in the past are “biased”. They reported what happened then, and what was discovered later. Those were two very different things.

The facts are the facts. You’re conflating bias, with what is in the public record re: Barr not being forthright and honest about something he wrote (or was heavily involved in) to cover for a president.

Do you have anything that refutes the FACTS of the record? If not, then we must conclude that Barr is likely to be very biased, and deceptive. Because he’s had a very analogous situation, and he essentially lied to Congress at that point. And he has taken actions since he’s been AG again that point to him not being an honest actor.

Show me something, anything, that shows what Barr did in the past was on the up and up. Please. And no whatabouts, please. I sense one of those coming after this post.

Again, let’s stay on target.

You guys like to use “the liberal MSM!!!” tag as a way to conveniently ignore bad acts and bad actors. You’re entitled to your opinion. You’re not entitled to your own facts. Those aren’t malleable.

PS- if the report isn’t butchered all to hell, I’ll be the first to come on here and admit that my fear was unfounded. Again, I’d GREATLY prefer to know what Mueller found. I’ve said from the beginning that I’d fully accept whatever he’s found.

“No one in the intelligence community considers court ordered surveillance spying”.

Are you f’n kidding me? That’s hilarious.

You recognize of course that surveillance is a synonym for spying, yes?

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

BTW, if Trump was involved with Russian oligarchs to launder their money through sales of Trump's real estate transactions, what would your response be? Would you be ready to impeach Trump at that point? Would you favor prosecuting him?

I've always thought "collusion" was a red herring, given that Trump beat that canard to death as a means to distract the public from what he's most concerned about.

So let's see his dealings, open air and public. He's got nothing to hide, right?

“Damn, Well Russian collusion was an idiotic premise, let’s see if we can find anything else to stick him for. He HAS to be corrupt, HE JUST HAS TO DAMNIT!”