Mueller: Letter to Barr says Summary, “Failed to Capture Context, Nature & Substance” of Report

Ladies and gentleman, to present the trump/republican position...

 

Is there an impeachment case against Barr?

 

There answer is still no but derangement says yes(oh god please yes!).

 

Barr lied to Congress. Full Stop. The AG should be beyond reproach. The House should impeach Barr. It is both red meat for the base and the right thing to do.

 

lots of commenters are suggesting that this current bout of Barr Derangement Syndrome is aimed at Barr as a low-hanging fruit alternative to impeaching Trump and as a means of forestalling the investigation into the Obama administration's role in 'spying' on the Trump campaign

https://www.wsj.com/articles/for-fear-of-william-barr-11556837637
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/05/for-fear-of-william-barr.php
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a..._reason_democrats_hate_bill_barr__140231.html

 

there is at least some ambiguity as to whether Barr "lied" or if he "prevaricated around the bush" . . . . I think "Full Stop" rather overstates the case.

 

We are at this place in history, when our government leaders do things that are so clearly wrong, but their best defense is "it did not rise to the level of impeachable"...


That said, I think hearing barr's explanation and Mueller's explanation of this would be helpful...

 

Why should it be ok for Barr to “prevaricate around the bush,” seemingly to protect the president, rather than just tell the truth in a plain way? Wouldn’t we prefer our attorney general to not have a dog in the fight?

Keep hope alive.

 

Or since Barr has shown he is a dishonest liar, Mueller wanted documented proof. Mueller's long investigation was pretty much leak free from the Mueller end.

 

Forestalling? The IG is currently investigating this. The previous House (114th) looked into this as well and came up with jack sh*t.

 

The case is political not criminal. Barr's lying easily meets the political "bar".

 

"it did not rise to the level of indictment" is better said.

 

There isn't really any ambiguity about if Barr lied.

But let's pretend that there is some way around the fact that he technically lied. He was less than honest with the American people and with Congress. He most definitely did not tell the 'whole truth and nothing but the truth'. He was dishonest and intentionally mislead both Congress and the American people.

It's a distinction without a difference.

 

I don't see any good reason to charge Barr for lying to Congress, even as a 'political', impeachable crime. He seems to have spoken to his interpretation of the report, and it'd be very hard to show that he internally interpreted one way and knowingly falsified his understanding in public. As annoying as Barr may be, that's not the hill to die on. Stick to the president's obstruction, to emoluments, and to the execution of Congressional subpoenas and conducting all their investigations.

I would not expect the AG to review all that evidence. He's got people for that. Specifically, Mueller. I think it's reasonable the AG would simply accept Mueller's presentation of the facts and apply his interpretation of the law and whether the facts show a prosecutable crime. I don't think he's been an honest actor, but not looking at all the primary sources is not something I'd blame him for.

The House needs to hurry up and have Mueller testify. There's some really basic and essential questions they need to have him answer. Like, "Why didn't you make a recommendation regarding obstruction?" There shouldn't be competing theories when he can just tell you.

 

...that would be a very interesting question to hear an answer to from Robert Mueller. I'm a bit of the mindset that Mr. Mueller expects a level of discernment and judgement from the American public that actually may not even be present or reliable in the current political climate.

Even allowing that Mr. Mueller was always going to be dutiful in remaining as specific to the constraints of his mandate as possible (and therefore would not bring a case against the president that could not be conclusively proven)...to go so far as to state that potential crimes or irregularities were discovered during the process of his investigation, and subsequently deciding to not recommend anything pursuant to the resolution of those revelations...

...is in some ways the noble maneuver. Insofar as it concerns the American public, to make an essentially unilateral decision on the dispensation of the facts of his investigation (prosecutorial mandate or not) would have been an abdication of the duty that placed the country in this predicament in the first place...

...that being the fact that Donald Trump was elected (duly or otherwise) as president of the United States.

Personally, I was never going to be as concerned with (and subsequently, surprised by) whatever was going to be uncovered about the Donald in all of this. He has been, at best, an odious business personage...and a dissembling public figure...for the balance of his life.

The truths about Donald Trump (as they pertain to the prosecutors's investigation, at least), are not revelatory. They are, at best, expository.

And at the end, when presented with a choice (any choice) other than the Donald...

...by fiat, default or anything else...

...this is who we wound up with.

The real question is WHY.

...and that's probably a question even Robert Mueller couldn't give an answer to, even if he found that baby the Donald claims he could shoot in the middle of a street...

...again: there are a bunch of folks running around with voting cards who believe that the earth is flat and that measles vaccinations are the sign of the coming of the antiChrist...

 

this exchange underscores that

Barr's conclusion has no basis of fact; he injected a pre-conceived biased into his summary.

Mueller's ~400-page report never used the word collusion.
Barr's half-assed 4-page summary used "collusion" 4 or 5 times​

 

Your point? The issue is that those are ALL ideas/concepts being put forward by the Democratic contenders for Presidency...and most of them are fairly mainstream within the Democratic party.

Which shows two things....one, that the ideas on this list can indeed be detrimental, and two, that perhaps some level of sanity, however small, may still exist with the Democratic party.

No, probably not. Biden is the one feasible current Democratic candidate. There are a couple others, but they aren't really feasible, and will fade away (already are).

But the issue remains. Biden will still have to contend with the large numbers of people within the Democratic party who DO espouse those ideas/concepts. Same problem Pelosi is dealing with. Keep in mind that to win the primary candidates need to shift towards the extreme of their party...then pivot back towards the middle for the general election. That will be a hard pivot for the Democratic candidates, I think...they will likely need to say things in the primary that will hurt them in the general...things like saying they ARE for some of these ideas.

 

I am dense?

Says the guy whose whole argument is that loan forgiveness means more college graduates.

i am gonna let you keep embarrassing yourself.

 

The point is that the poster was claiming that several candidates who where leading the Democratic polls advocated those issues which is demonstrably false.

Those are fringe issues that the majority of Democrats don't advocate of care about, they are a republican boogie man.