So Mueller was not satisfied with the way Barr summarized his report

[zeke4ahs]

This can’t surprise too many people. Once we actually saw the report it was pretty obvious Barr was lying to protect Trump. So what should be done about him? It feels as if our checks and balances are not holding up in this current environment. https://.com/mueller-objected-to-ba...mits-his-problem-was-with-the-media-not-barr/

 

[IDontWannaLargeFarva]

Sick link

 

[UncleMark]

This can’t surprise too many people. Once we actually saw the report it was pretty obvious Barr was lying to protect Trump. So what should be done about him? It feels as if our checks and balances are not holding up in this current environment. https://.com/mueller-objected-to-ba...mits-his-problem-was-with-the-media-not-barr/

bad link

 

[UncleMark]

From Drudge:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...not-capture-context-of-trump-probe/ar-AAAKJB8

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

From Drudge:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...not-capture-context-of-trump-probe/ar-AAAKJB8

“When Barr pressed Mueller on whether he thought Barr’s memo to congress was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not but felt that the media coverage of it was misinterpreting the investigation.”

:shrug: Sounds more like Mueller has a problem with the media.

To which I say, get in line, buddy. Very few people in this country trust the media, and with good reason.

 

[ribbont]

This can’t surprise too many people. Once we actually saw the report it was pretty obvious Barr was lying to protect Trump. So what should be done about him? It feels as if our checks and balances are not holding up in this current environment. https://.com/mueller-objected-to-ba...mits-his-problem-was-with-the-media-not-barr/

There is this in most of the stories:

"After the Attorney General received Special Counsel Mueller's letter, he called him to discuss it," Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said in a statement.

"In a cordial and professional conversation, the Special Counsel emphasized that nothing in the Attorney General's March 24 letter was inaccurate or misleading. But, he expressed frustration over the lack of context and the resulting media coverage regarding the Special Counsel's obstruction analysis," she added.

 

[UncleMark]

Shocking that the DoJ spokesman spun it into "Mueller didn't call Barr a baldfaced liar."

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.​

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

Shocking that the DoJ spokesman spun it into "Mueller didn't call Barr a baldfaced liar."

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.​

Well, there is the fact that Barr didn’t actually lie.

 

[Standard Issue]

Well, there is the fact that Barr didn’t actually lie.

SIns of omission.

You don't have to lie to mislead.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Well, there is the fact that Barr didn’t actually lie.

Barr was asked if Mueller agreed with his summary. He said he didn’t know. He did know. He had already spoken to him.

 

[zeke4ahs]

More: From attorney George Conway
This sworn testimony doesn’t appear to be true.
Sen Van Hollen: Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion ( about obstruction) ?
Barr: I don’t know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion.

By April 10, when Barr swore to that, could there have been any doubt what Mueller’s view of Barr’s conclusion was?

 

[ribbont]

More: From attorney George Conway
This sworn testimony doesn’t appear to be true.
Sen Van Hollen: Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion ( about obstruction) ?
Barr: I don’t know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion.

By April 10, when Barr swore to that, could there have been any doubt what Mueller’s view of Barr’s conclusion was?

Unless you or George were on the call, then yes, there is doubt Barr knew of Muellers support of, or lack there of, the conclusion.

 

[zeke4ahs]

This can’t surprise too many people. Once we actually saw the report it was pretty obvious Barr was lying to protect Trump. So what should be done about him? It feels as if our checks and balances are not holding up in this current environment. https://.com/mueller-objected-to-ba...mits-his-problem-was-with-the-media-not-barr/

There is this in most of the stories:

"After the Attorney General received Special Counsel Mueller's letter, he called him to discuss it," Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said in a statement.

"In a cordial and professional conversation, the Special Counsel emphasized that nothing in the Attorney General's March 24 letter was inaccurate or misleading. But, he expressed frustration over the lack of context and the resulting media coverage regarding the Special Counsel's obstruction analysis," she added.

And we are supposed to believe the DOJ spokesperson why?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

More: From attorney George Conway
This sworn testimony doesn’t appear to be true.
Sen Van Hollen: Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion ( about obstruction) ?
Barr: I don’t know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion.

By April 10, when Barr swore to that, could there have been any doubt what Mueller’s view of Barr’s conclusion was?

Mueller’s view of Barr’s letter doesn’t matter. WaPo’s “review” of Mueller’s letter doesn’t matter. We have no clue what Muller said to Barr. What matters is Mueller’s conclusion. Mueller didn’t indict on anything connected to Trump. Rosenstein was Mueller’s supervisor. Rosenstein isn’t a Trumpbot. Rosenstein agrees with Barr.

End of story.

 

[ribbont]

And we are supposed to believe the DOJ spokesperson why?

Why not?

 

[zeke4ahs]

And we are supposed to believe the DOJ spokesperson why?

Why not?

That’s pretty obvious. Barr is a tool for Trump. So I wouldn’t believe anything coming from his office.

 

[zeke4ahs]

More: From attorney George Conway
This sworn testimony doesn’t appear to be true.
Sen Van Hollen: Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion ( about obstruction) ?
Barr: I don’t know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion.

By April 10, when Barr swore to that, could there have been any doubt what Mueller’s view of Barr’s conclusion was?

Mueller’s view of Barr’s letter doesn’t matter. WaPo’s “review” of Mueller’s letter doesn’t matter. We have no clue what Muller said to Barr. What matters is Mueller’s conclusion. Mueller didn’t indict on anything connected to Trump. Rosenstein was Mueller’s supervisor. Rosenstein isn’t a Trumpbot. Rosenstein agrees with Barr.

End of story.

Once again, you don’t get to write the end of the story. Mueller obviously thought Trump obstructed justice and directs Congress to handle it. As they will.

 

[ribbont]

That’s pretty obvious. Barr is a tool for Trump. So I wouldn’t believe anything coming from his office.

But I am sure you believed Holder, Obama's self proclaimed wing man.

You just look thru blue colored glasses.

 

[zeke4ahs]

That’s pretty obvious. Barr is a tool for Trump. So I wouldn’t believe anything coming from his office.

But I am sure you believed Holder, Obama's self proclaimed wing man.

You just look thru blue colored glasses.

Didn’t really matter, because President Obama wasn’t a criminal that needed his entire party to lie and cover up for him each and every day. Complicit.

 

[ribbont]

Didn’t really matter, because President Obama wasn’t a criminal that needed his entire party to lie and cover up for him each and every day. Complicit.

And Trump is not a criminal either.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Didn’t really matter, because President Obama wasn’t a criminal that needed his entire party to lie and cover up for him each and every day. Complicit.

And Trump is not a criminal either.

Lol. Individual 1 has committed two crimes that we know of, with many more to come.

 

[Circlejoe]

The Attorney General of the United States lies to the American people. Fact. If you are willing to excuse that you are no patriot.

 

[ribbont]

Lol. Individual 1 has committed two crimes that we know of, with many more to come.

I missed that. Please share the link to his criminal convictions.

 

[IUclover]

But I am sure you believed Holder, Obama's self proclaimed wing man.

You just look thru blue colored glasses.

This is a pretty pathetic comment. Stop hitting the snooze and wake up.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Lol. Individual 1 has committed two crimes that we know of, with many more to come.

I missed that. Please share the link to his criminal convictions.

I’m pretty sure you know he can’t be indicted while in office. He committed criminal activity when he bribed his porn star and playboy bunny. He committed criminal activity when he lied about how much money he had to secure a loan. But don’t worry, plenty more to come. I’ll keep you update, since you seem to not be aware.

 

[ribbont]

I’m pretty sure you know he can’t be indicted while in office. He committed criminal activity when he bribed his porn star and playboy bunny. He committed criminal activity when he lied about how much money he had to secure a loan. But don’t worry, plenty more to come. I’ll keep you update, since you seem to not be aware.

Ok. Got it. He is a criminal, but not yet. But will be. But currently not. Yep. I understand fully now why I should not believe the DOJ spox. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

“When Barr pressed Mueller on whether he thought Barr’s memo to congress was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not but felt that the media coverage of it was misinterpreting the investigation.”

:shrug: Sounds more like Mueller has a problem with the media.

To which I say, get in line, buddy. Very few people in this country trust the media, and with good reason.

Sure, if you only read that one paragraph. If you read the whole thing - including official comments from the DOJ itself - it is clear that Mueller thought the coverage was misleading precisely because Barr didn't provide proper context in his letter.

 

[Circlejoe]

Ok. Got it. He is a criminal, but not yet. But will be. But currently not. Yep. I understand fully now why I should not believe the DOJ spox. Thanks for clearing that up.

Clear as can be. Trump committed criminal offenses. He also committed offenses that rise to levels of impeachment that may not be criminal. Now the AG May have committed offenses that would call for impeachment. And these are your guys. All we need to know.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Ok. Got it. He is a criminal, but not yet. But will be. But currently not. Yep. I understand fully now why I should not believe the DOJ spox. Thanks for clearing that up.

You’re being obtuse. He is a criminal now. He committed crimes. Because he is president he cannot be charged. Hope that clears it up for you.

 

[EarlTubbs]

This is DOJ spin, not Mueller spin. Mueller is not the source for the letter’s release.

 

[twenty02]

Barr is a joke. Really disappointing, but not surprising. All this admin knows how to do is bring in washed-up boot lickers that are so old they have nothing left to offer to regular society.

 

[kobis18]

Can we please stop putting party above country and acknowledge this is wrong?

“The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions,” Mueller wrote. “There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”

"The letter made a key request: that Barr release the 448-page report’s introductions and executive summaries, and made some initial suggested redactions for doing so, according to Justice Department officials."

"Throughout the conversation, Mueller’s main worry was that the public was not getting an accurate understanding of the obstruction investigation, officials said"

 

[Rockfish1]

"Of course Barr's letter tells us all we need to know," said people who were engaged in motivated reasoning. "If Barr were misleading us, don't you think Mueller would object?"

Then those same people dismissed reports that members of Mueller's team objected. Now they're rejecting reports that Mueller himself objected. And they're doing this even though the report's release makes it abundantly clear that Barr did mislead us. So they're making the same stupid arguments in support of the same stupid point even after it's been established that the stupid point is wrong. It'd be amusing if it weren't appalling.

A dishonest partisan fixer like Barr could fool people because they wanted to be fooled. And they still want to be fooled. This is how it works with Trump supporters. Even though the report is out, showing that Barr misled us, they still trust the dishonest fixer, because he tells them what they want to hear.

All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest​

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Mueller obviously thought Trump obstructed justice

No that isn’t obvious. Mueller described conduct but came to no conclusion. Mueller thought the AG should decide so Rosenstein and Barr agreed no obstruction.

Congress is not a criminal justice agency no matter how much the Dems would like it to be. If the Dems start impeachment because the left wing base and a few congressional nut jobs demand it, they might as well hand the election to the GOP now and save all the time and trouble.

End of story.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

"Of course Barr's letter tells us all we need to know," said people who were engaged in motivated reasoning. "If Barr were misleading us, don't you think Mueller would object?"

Then those same people dismissed reports that members of Mueller's team objected. Now they're rejecting reports that Mueller himself objected. And they're doing this even though the report's release makes it abundantly clear that Barr did mislead us. So they're making the same stupid arguments in support of the same stupid point even after it's been established that the stupid point is wrong. It'd be amusing if it weren't appalling.

A dishonest partisan fixer like Barr could fool people because they wanted to be fooled. And they still want to be fooled. This is how it works with Trump supporters. Even though the report is out, showing that Barr misled us, they still trust the dishonest fixer, because he tells them what they want to hear.

All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest​

Yeah. We disregard Mueller’s letter because it’s irrelevant and Barr’s summary because it is moot. As usual, you are arguing about nothing important.

The only thing that matters is Mueller’s report which explains why there is no indictments or suggested indictments. Mueller came to no conclusion on obstruction.

End of story.

Oh, and who cares if some of Mueller’s team wanted to hang Trump by the short hairs? That isn’t a surprise given the political make up of his team.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

No that isn’t obvious. Mueller described conduct but came to no conclusion. Mueller thought the AG should decide so Rosenstein and Barr agreed no obstruction.

Congress is not a criminal justice agency no matter how much the Dems would like it to be. If the Dems start impeachment because the left wing base and a few congressional nut jobs demand it, they might as well hand the election to the GOP now and save all the time and trouble.

End of story.

If the Mueller report is "the president cannot be indicted so there is nothing more i can do", does that not mean it is up to congress? The very concept that the president cannot be indicted means Congress is the only option for a miscreant president.

 

[zeke4ahs]

No that isn’t obvious. Mueller described conduct but came to no conclusion. Mueller thought the AG should decide so Rosenstein and Barr agreed no obstruction.

Congress is not a criminal justice agency no matter how much the Dems would like it to be. If the Dems start impeachment because the left wing base and a few congressional nut jobs demand it, they might as well hand the election to the GOP now and save all the time and trouble.

End of story.

It’s so sad the lengths you go to in order to support this man. You’ve become nothing but a shill for a deeply corrupt and dishonest man, and his administration. You’d be shouting from the rooftops had President Obama been involved in anything like this.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

If the Mueller report is "the president cannot be indicted so there is nothing more i can do", does that not mean it is up to congress? The very concept that the president cannot be indicted means Congress is the only option for a miscreant president.

Leaving aside whether POTUS can even obstruct justice by firing SC (to my knowledge Mueller didn’t answer this question. There is considerable legitimate disagreement about it) the rule is that once Trump leaves office he is subject to prosecution.

Yes, congress can impeach for anything. There are no standards, relevant precedent, or guardrails other than the next election.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

It’s so sad the lengths you go to in order to support this man. You’ve become nothing but a shill for a deeply corrupt and dishonest man, and his administration. You’d be shouting from the rooftops had President Obama been involved in anything like this.

Lol. You keep using the word “support” in the political context. Unlike you, I don’t don’t support politicians. I don’t even know them. All I do is agree with some of the things they do or promise to do.

As far as this discussion is concerned, I’m simply pointing out how I see the legal process. And I also take enjoyment from pointing out the fallacies of Democrats, like arguing about the contents of Mueller’s out of date and irrelevant letter addressing Barr’s now moot summary.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

addressing Barr’s now moot summary

Except you know that summary was done to make sure to move the barr of public opinion (pun intended) before the full report. Is the AG an honest broker, or the personal attorney to the president. He can be one or the other, but not both.