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

Probably true. But, as a practical matter, all the Senate Republicans needed was a fig leaf to give them a plausible reason to not support an impeachment. Barr gives them that with this legal opinion. Even if the report comes out with good evidence on obstruction, and even enough to drive an impeachment, I foresee Senate Republicans relying on this rationale to justify not convicting.

 

I suspect you are right. Hence barr rushing out with his summary statement, er, key conclusions, um... the story trump needed to come out. And hence the delay between barr's "exoneration" and the release of the redacted report. By the time the report comes out, trump and supporters will have had the drumbeat of "no collusion, no obstruction", and any actual findings reported in the report will be downplayed.

 

Almost 400 pages you guys, let’s go!

 

Almost as long as the Report Barr is hiding to protect Trump

 

Shame, Barr should arrest himself for obstruction. Now we know Trump installed Barr to save his skin as a fall guy who is loyal at all costs - that's what Trump wanted after all.

Trump is officially a criminal, and hiding his misdeeds isn't going to work. We need to get Trump out of office ASAP. He's the true enemy of the people.

 

essay at The Hill that's highly critical of the Barr-bashing by "anonymous" sources:

. . . no federal prosecutor has the right to impugn an uncharged investigative target’s reputation through anonymous leaks or literary reports. They are not allowed to anonymously inject into the court of public opinion any “damaging” information about what they couldn’t succeed at offering in a court of law as proof of criminality.

Prosecution isn’t a game of horseshoes or hand grenades where prosecutors get to score points or inflict damage without indicting the target. In fact, the Founding Fathers built a legal system specifically to avoid the tarring of citizens when there wasn’t enough proof to meet a criminal charge.

And nowhere is that intention to protect the citizenry more clear than in the rules governing grand juries. The federal justice system created grand juries so that evidence that was embarrassing or damaging to defendants could be weighed behind closed doors but never released if it did not rise to the level of provable criminality.

***

I also believe the Times shares some fault. As a lifelong journalist I won’t criticize a news organization for reporting on a story such as this and quoting sources, especially if they were in a first-person position to really know. Journalists should strive to find out what their elected leaders such as Trump have done, whether criminal or not.

But I strongly believe — as did the news organization for which I worked for the longest in my professional career, The Associated Press — that we have an obligation as reporters to quote information anonymously only from first-hand sources.

There is compelling evidence — starting with the lead of the story — that the Times information comes anonymously from “associates” of the actual prosecutors. In other words, it is second-hand hearsay.

I’m not sure that rises to a strong journalistic standard.​

more at the link:

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...am-mueller-if-you-dont-indict-you-cant-incite

 

It seems to me a bit inappropriate for Barr or Mueller to be making any recommendations or conclusions regarding President Trump in a final report (or summary thereof) unless they were somehow actually recommending an indictment. It is because they are a bit of a square peg in a round hole. They are criminal prosecutors and not political prosecutors. The only party that can have a say on whether there was an impeachable offense is the House. It is not the DOJ's place to say the material they found sufficiently shows or does not show any high crime. They can't even interpret what a high crime is. This means, one, that it is really important that the entire report and supporting evidence be furnished to the House. And, two, we don't need any investigators intimating what the evidence shows. I can understand the legalistic concerns about impugning unindicted people. But we don't need any exonerating either or any conclusion from them at all. The anonymous investigators, Mueller, Rosenstein, and Barr all need to shut up and turn their evidence over to the real prosecutors -- the Representatives.

 

In my opinion, what you have said here applies more to Barr than anyone. If I understand correctly, Mueller and his team turned over their report to Barr seemingly with the intention of Barr releasing the report to Congress. (Or at the very least the summaries that Mueller’s team wrote).

Barr instead wrote his own summary and then is performing redactions on the report before he releases it (which may be necessary to protect sensitive information). So Mueller’s team, or people close to them leak that Barr’s summary isn’t necessarily reprsentative of the evidence.

It seems like Mueller’s intent was to have congress draw their own conclusions, but Barr has so far not allowed that.

In other words I think your comment is unnecessary in relation to Mueller as what you have suggested seems to have been his plan all along.

 

False. Mueller and barr are currently working together to redact information from the report so that it can be released. Mueller and everyone else knows this is the process.

 

The House must see every bit of the Mueller report. Anything less would be preventing that body from doing it's job. That is the process, and everyone knows it.

 

Once again, tallanvor with complete knowledge of exactly what everyone is and isn't doing 1400 miles away.

 

It's not private, you are just ignorant.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...bd41a2ce4d5_story.html?utm_term=.772c454b80ba

 

Basically the worst case scenario for Democracy, a political operative, corrupt to the core, has tools to imprison political opponents. Hopefully its just a publicity stunt and and not the further destruction of our government.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/07/politics/devin-nunes-justice-department/index.html

Nunes sending eight criminal referrals to Attorney General William Barr

 

he doesn't have tools to imprison political opponents. That's why he is referring it to Barr (who also doesn't have tools to imprison political opponents). Its called the judiciary branch. Look it up.

What Barr has is the ability to put someone on trial which is very costly.

 

No, it's like someone doing everything they can to imprison people because they are from a different political party much the same way it is done in crackpot Latin American and Eastern European dictatorships.

 

So this line of discussion follows a Juan Valdez post to which havoc1 seems to suggest clarifying nuance:

Which has the appearance of declaring that you, tallanvor, have irrefutably clearer understanding of the chemistry, consensus, and mechanics of the Barr/Mueller function in the redacting process. It is on this implication that I express doubt, noting your air of unsubstantiated confidence is reminiscent of other of your posts I've encountered.

While I'm happy to see you link a source, that article would seem to convey there remains great doubt as to how robust or repressed the redacted report will be. I'm not sure to what you refer as being "not private". You are correct that there is a great deal of which I am ignorant. One wonders how much projection there may be in your assertion of same. I will say that I make an effort not to speak on what I do not know, but if I feel moved to discuss a topic on which I lack certainty, I try to make clear the degree to which doubt remains.

 

You can just say 'oops my bad. I didn't know that.'

Instead of the garbage you did post.

 

I understand the processes you douche.

When are you ever gonna wake up and realize how corrupt your "tribe" is.