Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Is Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation

The way you write that almost insinuates that firing Comey was Rosenstein's idea. Did you know that the initial reason given for the firing was that Comey was too harsh on HRC? Do you, or does anyone here, believe that?

You mean the republican Rosenstein, appointed by the republican Trump white house, who appointed republican-voting Mueller?

Witch hunt!

 

Have you read his report? All I've seen is info from the AG.

 

Paul Mirengoff examines the question "Why did Mueller punt on obstruction?" and offers some tentative speculations of his own. Note to @biff17 , I honestly don't have an opinion one way or another on this, I just think Mirengoff is a reliably thoughtful person whose speculations might be worth considering. You may disagree.

Excerpt:

Why did Mueller punt? In theory, there are at least four possibilities. First, he didn’t think it was job to state a firm conclusion. Second, he concluded that there is no sound basis for recommending the prosecution of Trump, but didn’t want to say so. Third, he concluded that there is a sound basis for recommending prosecution, Trump, but didn’t want to say so. Fourth, he couldn’t make up his mind.

Without knowing much about what’s in the report, weighing the plausibility of these theories requires a good deal of speculation. My speculation is below. For those who want the short version, I speculate that Mueller concluded there is no sound basis for prosecuting Trump, but didn’t to say so, probably at least in part to satisfy his staff.​

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/03/why-did-mueller-punt-on-obstruction.php

 

His statement about Mueller's opinion seems to come from Mueller. Would he lie about something Mueller could dispute?

 

Lie no, mislead yes.

 

Bingo!! The quote below is from the Barr summary and the part in Bold is what he quoted directly from the Mueller report. That leaves no room for any interpretation other than NO COLLUSION. Anyone thinking anything different is just wishing upon a star.

From the Barr summary in regards to collusion:

 

I think the clip where Schiff responds and demolishes these GOPers is better....

Remember Schiff was on the US Senate investigation.

 

Duplicate

 

The Trumpire Strikes Back.

 

He's the Eric Swallwell of the D&D.

 

Ok, lets hear it. Obviously you have reason to suspect that the information given by Barr is false.

Is it because Mueller has disputed Barr's version?
Is it because someone you trust has actually seen the report and disputes Barr's version?
What is it?

 

on the question of whether Barr has mislead people and/or has lied in his summary of the Mueller report.

And for @biff17 's sake, I'll say that I too have no reason to suspect that Barr was being deceitful in any way in his summary of Mueller's report.

Excerpt:

"There’s no reason to doubt that Attorney General Barr has faithfully described the report’s conclusions."​

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/robert-mueller-report-said-to-exceed-300-pages-so-what/

 

I think it's more because conservatives are overreacting to the fact that collusion didn't meet the legal requirements, which doesn't mean Trump acted appropriately and fitting of the presidency. You'll notice on this particular forum, some conservatives think this means it was all "hoax" and "fabrication".

I think Fox News Judge Napolitano does a great job of providing an explanation:


Fox’s Judge Napolitano: ‘There Is Something There’ on Conspiracy in Mueller Report
‘There is something there, but it is not enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,’ the Fox News senior judicial analyst said Wednesday.



https://www.thedailybeast.com/foxs-...ort-there-is-something-there?via=twitter_page

 

Again, Fox News Judge does a great job explaining why he thinks Barr shouldn't have made the claims he did.

Lastly, I think it would be naive to think Trump just randomly picked a conservative AG.... As Barr has made his opinion on the case and executive power known publicly through opinion pieces. Here's a response to one such thing:

Bloomberg Opinion: William Barr’s Baffling and Alarming View of Executive Power

 

I think the information given by Barr is worded carefully to be true but I have no idea as to how accurate and contextually honest it is.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ally-find-no-evidence-trump-russia-collusion/

 

The question wasn't actually addressed to you, but since you responded you're saying that speculation by Napolitano is the reason you think the report issued by AG Barr is fundamentally wrong?

 

Which part is "carefully worded"? You've admitted you think its true and yet all he really gave in his report is the findings. If the findings are true...carefully worded or not...what else matters? Unless you think Mueller wasn't thorough enough?

But every post you make seems to indicate you DO have an idea....I haven't seen one indication in any post you've made that you have ANY trust in Barr's 4 page report.

 

That is the funniest damn thing I read today. Thanks @Os Trigonum

 

Every post I've made indicated that I don't think either side should jump to conclusions until we've seen the actual report. I wasn't willing to say Trump was guilty and should be impeached before the report, and I don't think it is safe to claim the report exonerates Trump now that it is done. The posts I am replying to are those claiming that the report exonerates Trump. That hasn't been demonstrated at this point. It may still be the case, though we do know of attempts and willingness to collude with the Russians.