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

Barr was wrong and you continue to be wrong...

Simple understanding of the English language disappearing.... MAGA!!

 

I say the Russian collusion thing is over. They should let it rest and find some other way to torment Trump. Nevertheless I hope they don't. It is very entertaining.

 

What was he wrong about? He specifically said, he assumed that they might be talking about not enough infromation being in the letter.

 

Keep it up. It is really entertaining. I should mention, though, that in order to put someone in jail, the congress must make a referral to the justice department. They can't jail anybody.

 

Most of what you say is correct.... I just sort of have to laugh at anybody ordering a bound copy of the Mueller report from a bookstore (a what??) or Amazon...

I've got a searchable version bookmarked, and another PDF on my desktop for fast navigation, but even I'm not going to get a bound version...

On your "Mueller took the gloves off Congress and they will act"?? I'm wondering why they haven't yet. I know Nadler is making a show out of getting the redacted material, but I'm not sure why he would need it.... There is certainly enough out there to proceed to the hearing stage, even if a formal Impeachment vote is never scheduled.

My guess is he's waiting for McGahn. Once he's testified (and obviously executive privilege is non-existent at this point), I think Nadler will have some skin in the game.. But he needs to get all the witnesses he wants scheduled/subpoenaed NOW, since most of them are going to be fought over (Transparency vs Trumparency)... ohh... I just made that up...

 

Like Mueller and Barr said. There are different 'interpretations' of the acts and Mueller found nothing actionable, which is in Barr's summary.

 

Please to back up your statement that "Mueller found nothing actionable".

From the Mueller report itself...

 

Duh, what did he find actionable? Name it.

 

Whether Trump's dependence upon his TelePrompter is of concern to you is entirely your prerogative.

Why do you suppose he was so giddily ecstatic at Barr's little spin on Mueller's report, then suddenly hysterical as the real substance of the actual report emerged?

 

And now he is attempting a coup against Congress (to use his own inflammatory language).

 

WOW... that was a road-runner level backtrack...

But I'm not going to get into that, because HE didn't get into that, because he wasn't allowed to pursue anything legally after his report.

"First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to
initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial
judgment."

He didn't initiate a prosecution.... He didn't decline a prosecution..... There's a lot more, but you'll have to research it yourself to understand the situation Mueller was in.

He invited Congress to determine if there is anything they want to do with the data in his report, which was really all he could do in his situation.. I understand that.... why don't you?

 

Panic ensues.

Watch for the zany diversions of trumpery reaching fever pitch.

Simultaneously denying the revelations of the Trump Justice Department's Republican Special Counsel, hiding his oft-promised tax returns at all costs, and indulging in copious tweetywanks at Republican George Conway could induce overload.

 

I'd hate to think what he would do if things actually did get bad for him.

 

"Collusion" has principally been a diversion perpetrated by Deranged Don. There is no such crime, and the plethora of Trump's agents' secret trysts during the campaign with Putin's about which they repeatedly lied under oath, is not central to the scandal. They merely shared a common goal, in their own respective interests, of promoting Trump and hurting his opponent.

Of far greater importance is the absolute necessity of confronting the hostile attack upon America's democratic process and instituting safeguards to prevent such future predations.

 

To be fair, it’s not the quantity of redactions that matter, it’s the substance. What was redacted, and why?

 

Yes, I think we should go back to paper ballots. It worked just fine for centuries. Not likely to happen, however, because government never pursues the easy route.

 

It will.

If the majority of Americans who agree, consistently and relentlessly, that Trump stinks express the same sentiment at the polls in 2020 that they did in 2018, some crackpots will be very, very pissy.

Fixer Cohen expressed the prospect: “I fear that if he loses the election in 2020, that there will never be a peaceful transition of power."

​

 

According to Giuliani, McGahn made three separate statements. Something the Special Counsel parses over by saying "Oh well, he wouldn't have any reason to lie" which is absolutely RIDICULOUS. Why should we accept the prosecution without hearing the defense? Further, this is irresponsible "investigating" by the investigators to fail to meaningfully collaborate McGahn's statement, or to pin it down.

Mueller wants special treatment that he'd never get in any court room: For the prosecution's argument to be heard, accepted without rebuttal and then convicted upon such. Yeah, they do that: In Saudi freaking Arabia, Russia, China or name any other strongman State.

 

Mueller said Barr’s summary “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions.”

Given that distortion, it is essential that the Republican Special Counsel's actual report be thoroughly assessed by Congress.

A repeatedly-confirmed attack upon the democratic process of the US by a hostile foreign power cannot be ignored, regardless how how inconvenient that might be for any partisan faction.

 

Man, you are on fire.... point by point

According to Giuliani - Full Stop.... enough said.

Oh well, he wouldn't have any reason to lie, which is absolutely RIDICULOUS. - Name one reason McGahn would have to lie to get Trump IN potential trouble??

Why should we accept the prosecution without hearing the defense? - I'd LOVE to have a formal defense answer McGahn's claims... You think we need to indict/impeach Trump so he can put on a defense?? Trump has already stated publicly he didn't tell McGahn to fire Mueller... There ya go!!

Mueller wants special treatment that he'd never get in any court room - How so? What special treatment has he asked for, other than requesting Barr not improperly represent his report to the public before it's released, a fair request I would think.

Anything else??

 

Your second sentence should and will happen regardless of whatever Barr did (or didn't do) with his meaningless summary...

 

The concerns Mueller expressed in his letter to Barr was not complaining that anything Barr put in his summary as being inaccurate. Mueller's concerns were over the public's confusion as to what was in his report.....confusion that was created by the many different interpretations of the summary by many different media outlets, on both sides. Mueller seemed to be concerned that his report might not receive the public confidence in the outcome of the investigation. His concerns were not about the accuracy of the summary, it was about the confidence in his work.

 

See, that right there "Full stop, enough said." You don't give the same weight of credibility to the defense, that you do the prosecution. This is a problem in actual courthouses, but it's an even GREATER problem in the public because of our confirmation bias. But when you accuse someone of something, or use a statement as evidence of something that must be definitively proven(again, in a court of law.)

And Mueller willingly and consciously avoided the rule of law, using the excuse known to us that I do not accept. It must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and it has to meet the preponderance of evidence.

Because McGahn made three separate statements, how do we know which one to believe? Further, if Trump were really intent on it, McGahn's threat of resignation would have been irrelevant. In other words, Trump viewed McGahn's counsel and position as more worth it, then the attempt to replace(or fire, the word really doesn't matter to me.) Robert Mueller.

That in of itself, ends the obstruction theory in this case. Because the intent didn't exist, and follow through(which is important in virtually 99% of intent cases), didn't exist either.

Robert Mueller will NOT get the treatment from me, that he's getting from you. If he wants to make a claim to me, he has to prove it. His say-so isn't authoritative, and certainly not any moreso than the defense.

 

The one that was made to the Special Counsel and not the other 2 buzzing around Rudy's cavernous (empty) skull...

 

Of course he could. Not charging a President is not law. He could have indicted and let the courts fight it out. He decided to punt because he did not have the evidence to indict.