Zombie
Well-Known Member
Good call, it's way too big. Utahraptor maybe.
Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?
- Thread starter Gameface
- Start date
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
Uh oh...
Maybe the media shouldn’t have just swallowed Barr’s summary? It’s almost like Barr had his mind made up since at least last July, wrote an op-ed criticizing the probe which caught trump’s attention, and was appointed for the specific purpose of protecting trump! Crazy, right?
The mere fact that Barr didn’t release the summaries written by team Mueller and instead released his own demonstrate that Barr was acting in bad faith. This also explains why the air tight Mueller team is now leaking. Folks, our democracy is in trouble...
Maybe the media shouldn’t have just swallowed Barr’s summary? It’s almost like Barr had his mind made up since at least last July, wrote an op-ed criticizing the probe which caught trump’s attention, and was appointed for the specific purpose of protecting trump! Crazy, right?
The mere fact that Barr didn’t release the summaries written by team Mueller and instead released his own demonstrate that Barr was acting in bad faith. This also explains why the air tight Mueller team is now leaking. Folks, our democracy is in trouble...
Last edited by a moderator:
No... they should have, and they did. But the only thing that changed the day after the report was released to the AG was the pressure to release the report to the AG. I'm proud(but very surprised) of the larger media, and liberal response. They received word from the AG, stuck to their opinion but stepped it back a bit. Not all of the media did, and not all liberals did, and not everyone that was interested in the investigation(not politicking) did, but there was a noticeable change. This isn't naivete, but being a responsible adult; something that I don't feel multiple Clinton(Bill and Hillary), Obama, and Bush investigations showed.
The public and the media reps still want the whole of the report. So does any congressional representative still interested in understanding everything that went into it. So does every senator worth the air they breath. We asked for an investigation, we got an investigation. We got the Starr report when it dirtied Billy's image(while still in office), substantially. Only because the rules for a special investigation changed in '98 did congress not receive the report directly. A more GOP-centric statement(currently) would be the rules for a special investigation that would send the report directly to congress "expired" in '98, when the undertaker threw mankind off hеll in a cell, and plummeted sixteen feet through an announcer's table.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
Repubs don’t want to see the report despite claiming that it completely exonerates Donald.
Graham doesn’t seem too eager to know all of the details about the report. I’m sure he’d feel the same way if Clinton was being investigated...
We can keep harping on party lines, or we can identify issues. I have all the time in the world for effective, non-partisan conservative values, but I have no time for a politician of any party being willfully ignorant. Graham, McConnell and Co, since long before the Mueller investigation, have been willfully ignorant.
Red
Well-Known Member
What a surprise....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...al-exoneration-team-mueller-nope-not-so-much/
The new revelations in the New York Times and The Post about anger among Mueller investigators at Barr will make this spin — and that media framing — a lot harder to sustain.
The Times reports that some of Mueller’s investigators “have told associates” that Barr “failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry,” and that they were “more troubling” for Trump than Barr’s letter indicated. Those Mueller investigators believe Barr “should have included more of their material.” It’s not clear from the Times report how exactly these investigators thought Barr’s letter oversimplified their findings.
But The Post’s account adds substantially to this portion of the story. Barr’s letter stated that Mueller’s report details evidence on “both sides” of the question of whether Trump committed criminal obstruction of justice, and said Barr stepped in to conclude that Mueller’s findings were “not sufficient” to establish that criminality. The Post report, however, says this:
Members of Mueller’s team have complained to close associates that the evidence they gathered on obstruction was alarming and significant.
“It was much more acute than Barr suggested,” said one person, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the subject’s sensitivity.
Meanwhile, The Post also reports that Mueller’s team had prepared summaries of their conclusions. Critically, one official says this was done so these summaries could be shared with the public, as opposed to the public being informed by "the attorney general’s summary of their work, as turned out to be the case.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...al-exoneration-team-mueller-nope-not-so-much/
The new revelations in the New York Times and The Post about anger among Mueller investigators at Barr will make this spin — and that media framing — a lot harder to sustain.
The Times reports that some of Mueller’s investigators “have told associates” that Barr “failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry,” and that they were “more troubling” for Trump than Barr’s letter indicated. Those Mueller investigators believe Barr “should have included more of their material.” It’s not clear from the Times report how exactly these investigators thought Barr’s letter oversimplified their findings.
But The Post’s account adds substantially to this portion of the story. Barr’s letter stated that Mueller’s report details evidence on “both sides” of the question of whether Trump committed criminal obstruction of justice, and said Barr stepped in to conclude that Mueller’s findings were “not sufficient” to establish that criminality. The Post report, however, says this:
Members of Mueller’s team have complained to close associates that the evidence they gathered on obstruction was alarming and significant.
“It was much more acute than Barr suggested,” said one person, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the subject’s sensitivity.
Meanwhile, The Post also reports that Mueller’s team had prepared summaries of their conclusions. Critically, one official says this was done so these summaries could be shared with the public, as opposed to the public being informed by "the attorney general’s summary of their work, as turned out to be the case.”
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
If the justice dept won’t release the report then Mueller’s team needs to leak it out. Is is for the presidency of our country. We the people need to know.
It’s pretty obvious to me that Barr is doing his best to cover Trump’s *** and downplay the findings of the investigation.
It’s pretty obvious to me that Barr is doing his best to cover Trump’s *** and downplay the findings of the investigation.
In related news, https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/437102-house-panel-votes-to-subpoena-mueller-report
The House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday voted to authorize a subpoena to compel the Justice Department to hand over special counsel Robert Mueller’s full report to Congress, intensifying a power struggle with the Trump administration.
In a party-line vote, the committee voted 24-17 to approve a resolution authorizing subpoenas for Mueller’s report, including accompanying exhibits and other attachments, as well as its underlying evidence. The resolution also authorizes the committee's Democratic chairman to subpoena testimony related to the special counsel's report.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said he would give Attorney General William Barr time to produce the final, unredacted report to Congress before issuing the subpoena; however he did not provide a timeline on when that would happen.
“I will give him time to change his mind,” Nadler said. “But if we cannot reach an accommodation then we will have no choice but to issue subpoenas for these materials.
"And if the department still refuses, then it should be up to a judge — not the president and not his political appointee — to decide whether the committee can review the complete record,” Nadler said, underscoring Democrats' intention to go to the courts if necessary to obtain the full report.
--------
Seems very possible this could go to the Supreme Court.
The House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday voted to authorize a subpoena to compel the Justice Department to hand over special counsel Robert Mueller’s full report to Congress, intensifying a power struggle with the Trump administration.
In a party-line vote, the committee voted 24-17 to approve a resolution authorizing subpoenas for Mueller’s report, including accompanying exhibits and other attachments, as well as its underlying evidence. The resolution also authorizes the committee's Democratic chairman to subpoena testimony related to the special counsel's report.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said he would give Attorney General William Barr time to produce the final, unredacted report to Congress before issuing the subpoena; however he did not provide a timeline on when that would happen.
“I will give him time to change his mind,” Nadler said. “But if we cannot reach an accommodation then we will have no choice but to issue subpoenas for these materials.
"And if the department still refuses, then it should be up to a judge — not the president and not his political appointee — to decide whether the committee can review the complete record,” Nadler said, underscoring Democrats' intention to go to the courts if necessary to obtain the full report.
--------
Seems very possible this could go to the Supreme Court.
Then there's this, from that same article:
"Now we’re going to start this process all over again?" Trump added. "I think it’s a disgrace."
LOL that releasing the existing report which summarizes the findings from all of the work that's already been done is somehow "starting the process all over again".
"Now we’re going to start this process all over again?" Trump added. "I think it’s a disgrace."
LOL that releasing the existing report which summarizes the findings from all of the work that's already been done is somehow "starting the process all over again".
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
That’s funny. Wasn’t he the one tweeting out just a week ago that the report “completely exonerated him?” Why wouldn’t you want a report that “completely exonerates” to be made public?
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
If it goes to the Supreme Court, let’s please take a moment to remember Brett’s promise of vengeance:
