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

That is because it was a summary of the major conclusions, not a laundry list of Mueller's feelings.

 

Its quite convenient to slander the defense, when there's no legal answer otherwise. And this is why the coward chose not to resolve it in the court of law. The fact of the matter is, the Counsel did not throughly investigate McGahn's claims. It just decided to accept it, and cover up any inconsistencies that might follow with the whole "No reason to lie" thing.

Do remember, this is the same Counsel that virtually made its life off of that charge. If you don't intend to hold Mueller to an even scale, that's fine. But I do intend to hold him there.

 

From the OP's article.......

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, officials said.

The OP likes picking cherries I see.

 

He could have, and many (including myself) think he should have, but I'm not going to rake him over the coals for following the clearly stated rule of the department that assigned him the job...

He made it exceedingly clear that he thinks an indictment on OOJ would be doable when Trump is no longer president... "A lot of people" say so...

 

All of this is why you don't elect a lying narcissistic con man to the nation's highest office, and it demonstrates the importance of taking steps to curtail future election interference by hostile foreign powers.

 

Some will suddenly develop ADD, seizing upon Barr's G-rated preview of coming detractions if they suspect the actual product of nearly two-years of scrutiny produced inconvenient truths.

 

Seems you like ignoring the forest for the trees. It goes to show that Barr is running interference on Trump's behalf and doing a decent job of it. He misrepresented the content of the report in a way that was close enough to the truth not to get him into trouble while giving the liar and cheat who appointed him exactly what he wanted.

 

- A respected lawyer with a respected job told Mueller his side of a 2 person conversation.

- That lawyer is already known to keep notes of his work and conversations.

- That "real note taking" lawyer was also able to document later efforts to have the lawyer lie about the original conversation.

- The second person of the 2 person conversation refused to be interviewed on this, and similar, topics (I.E,.OOJ questions).

Tough ****, Donnie... You had to figure Trumps refusal to sit down with Mueller would bite him in the ass eventually (not a small target, incidentally)... If he had told his side of the story to Mueller, it MIGHT not read so starkly bad in the Mueller report (although it still might)

Yeah, it's he said/he said, but you gotta know on which side most informed people will fall...

 

Whatever spin partisans may wish to impose upon Barr's spin, it remains essential, as a matter of national security, that the actual report itself is thoroughly analyzed by Congress.

 

We have a post winner! That is the best 1 sentence recap of the Barr summary I've read (and I'm likely to steal it)

 

Mueller said Barrs memo was accurate, so you must want him to add spin. Mueller obviously did as after all that investigation and $30 million dollars of taxpayers money all he ended up with in his hand was his wiener.

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, officials said.

The "media coverage of it was misinterpreting the investigation". Guess you fell for it.

 

And all that matters is: He said/he said. It's not admissible in court for obstruction(and I think we all know Mueller knows it), it does however serve as a political punchline. Especially given the lack of confirmation otherwise. See, I'm not inclined to believe Mueller because Mueller says so(or even that McGahn) says so.

And if we were in a court, they'd both understand why. That's why I want the Trump team's rebuttal. I'm not lowering the standards because it's now in a public sphere. The defense has a right to a defense, and I intend to give them that right. Unbiased, without conviction.

 

I agree, it’s 100 percent correct. Barr gave the truth, and that’s what the president wanted

 

I do want to add that I generally enjoy your posts, from the RW/Trump side... you do make me think about it a little more than the standard post and you don't make it personal.

For that, I salute you

 

Lol please provide that quote in the report. You guys are hilarious.

 

Fine... I agree, although Trump doesn't need to submit a formal defense yet because he hasn't been indicted and there are no impeachment hearings.... So all you are going to get is Twitter and what I like to call "Chopper Talk"*, yelling at reporters while taking his time to board his heli.....

So far, we have the Mueller report vs "Nuh Uh"

* - I got that from Colbert...

 

Which quote? "A lot of people"?? I'm just mirroring Trump speak for EVERY claim he makes... glad you picked up on that...

I cannot remember the exact language (or section) Mueller used about indicting after presidency, so I cannot currently find that passage, but I will at some point...

EDIT - Aha Found it - Page 178 of volume 2


"Recognizing an immunity from prosecution for a sitting President would not preclude such
prosecution once the President 's term is over or he is otherwise removed from office by resignation or
impeachment.").

I believe he's just quoting the memo that said he couldn't indict Trump now, but he did include it...

 

That's true. I admit, a lot of my responses are as if I were Trump, etc and what my own defenses would be. Because if my guilt can be speculated, then my innocence can be speculated just as well and we're at the same place that we were from the beginning: Speculation.

Ultimately, it's up to the Democratic Leadership if they want to pursue it, and if we as voters want to reward them for doing so. I do not. Nadler's "leadership" is embarrassing. If not for his hounding of Barr, Barr would've never released the summary. We would've gotten the full report in mid-april. All we had to do, was calm.

Calm is not in Nadler's name. Hell, I could easily argue he obstructed Justice if the legal theory on Trump's obstruction is to be believed. Isn't Nadler's hounding an interference on Justice Department activities?

 

where he makes it abundantly clear and indictment could on OOJ is doable. You guys have lost it, you literally can't name one damn thing that actually impeded this investigation. Mules even made it clear in the report that Trump provided every document, allowed every witness to appear to testify open and honestly, did not ever invoke executive privilege. If you think the America public sees that as obstruction than your crazy. Your trying to say because he told McGann to call Rosey and tell him to let him go because of his conflicts of interest. Rosey and McGann both denied that and Trump DID NOT FIRE HIM. He could've but didn't therefore how the hell you going to impeach on Obstruction when the guy was allowed to finish freely. Go for impeachment you'll be the laughing stock of the world and have ZERO majorities, you'll lose the house, lose more seats in the Senate and certainly not sniff the Presidency. I truly believe you guys have gone stupid lately.

 

The letter he wrote to Barr is a matter of public record, so you can't spin or misrepresent it. He wrote it to Barr to express concern about the inadequacy of his ridiculous summary to properly convey the full meaning and context of what was in the report, which gave rise to troubling misrepresentation of the report's content in media coverage.

Put succinctly, Barr misrepresented the content of the report in a way that was favorable to Trump, and media coverage that followed was accordingly misleading in Trump's favor, and this was a matter of concern to Mueller.

I'm really looking forward to Mueller's public testimony before Congress. Should be quite an interesting event, especially in the wake of Barr's dishonesty yesterday and his running scared today.

 

Well, here is a link to the letter. You can read it yourself:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/01/politics/mueller-letter-to-barr/index.html

Though I do agree that the report itself needs to be analyzed by Congress....and they seem to be doing that, ad nauseum. I also think it is very important that Mueller himself testifies in front of Congress. However, I would hope that any testifying he does is conducted in a non-partisan arena. Unfortunately, I doubt if he will be given that luxury.

 

We're acting as though the man's non-partisan himself. He had that opportunity(and he also had the opportunity to inform the Public for TWO years during the investigation.) Coward's not gonna show. I'll bet a kidney on it LOL.

 

It is obvious now that Barr is just another trump stooge....whatever the Mafia Boss wants...

 

Oh, we are moving on to Nadler now? Okey Dokey

I'd like some proof that it was 'Nadler's hounding of Barr" without which Barr wouldn't have released his summary... NOBODY asked for a 4 pager from Barr (from the D side).. I understand there was going to be pressure to release something ASAP, but if Barr had said "Cool your jets, you'll get a redacted in 3 weeks", there is ZIPPY Nadler or any D could have or would have done.

I disagree with Nadler that he should be making the unredacted report such a big deal, enough I believe all of Congress is entitled to see it all (at least everybody on Nadler's committee).

I'll pose a question for you... Do you think Don McGahn and Bob Mueller should be prevented by WH/DOJ (respectively) from appearing before Nadler?? On any grounds?

 

That's the thing, Barr REPEATEDLY said that. Then, literally 48 hours later the jackass threatens Barr with a subponea. We both know, in real time what Nadler did. He should immediately stepdown from being chairman of the judiciary committee. The 'pressure' only came from the jackass, and we know what the jackass did.

His actions were demonstrably WAY worse than what Nunes did, in discussing the DOJ potential violations to the President. Nadler should at the very least be suspect to an Ethics Violation probe. Without Nadler's behavior, there's no summary. We both know it, as you acknowledge from "pressure to release something ASAP"

I personally believe Nadler to be unworthy of his position, and as an American he has lost my trust to capably in any format to hold that position.