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

WTF!

they are actually a thing on Fox news?

Cash dem checks.

 

Assuming everything goes down the way it’s most likely going to, there’s just no way that we can say with a straight face anymore that the United States of America is really truly a Democracy with truth justice, and all that.

Republican Trumpers are okay with that moving forward so let’s just be honest now and realize the situation for what it is.

In order for the Democratic Party to maintain any competitive power they certainly need the help of our former allies and foreign counties hostile to the GOP agenda. Like guys.... that is a reality now.

 

Well, yeah Barr gave what was obviously a partisan and biased summary of the Mueller Report in a brazen and unprofessional political defense of the president. I think that goes without saying. We were in fact predicting it would be a whitewash before he even released it, knowing the circumstances of his hire.

I think I can give him enough benefit of the doubt that he actually read the report itself before summarizing it. I don't think he said "collusion" not realizing that Mueller doesn't use it. He said collusion because he's a political operative. But, saying collusion doesn't show he's not familiar with or not drawing from the report because it can be more easily explained as interpreting the conclusions of the report in the common language of the popular conversation.

 

I’m also convinced more and more now that the only reason Barr ended up releasing the redacted report is because they had a good indication Muellers team was signaling they would give to Congress if there was a cover up.

The way the regs were written by Neil Katchael, however you spell his last name, would give Muellers team a good case if they were ever prosecuted for sharing classified information. The regs are clear about the ability for the special counsel to share with Congress any disagreements.

Basically Barr’s hands were forced and that’s the only reason he released so he shouldn’t get credit for transparency.

Also since Barr has repeatedly misled the American people I’m also anticipating it to come out that there was pressure or an order to end his probe which would be insanely corrupt on its face and should lead to impeachment of Barr and ultimately Trump if he had a hand in ending the probe.

 

https://www.tampabay.com/florida-po...eneral-william-barr-lie-to-rep-charlie-crist/

We can quibble on the weight this lie should be given, but not that it was a lie.

 

I am really starting to think that Trump and his administration are trying to bait the house dems into impeaching.

I am starting to think they need to call his bluff.

 

Be patient. Wait until Don McGahn and Robert Mueller testify.

 

I am in no rush but the fact that they are trying to block both from testifying could be the impetus.

 

Actually, it isn't...it is demonstrably true. They are NOT fringe issues...they are rapidly becoming mainstream within the Democratic party. If you think that isn't true...you need to pay more attention. Socialism, for example, is now supported by something like 38% of the country...making it like 75% of the Democratic party. LOTS of support for open borders, vastly increased minimum wage, the green new deal, etc. Not sure how you could even think those are just fringe issues, when it is all the Democratic party is putting forward, besides Orange Man Bad.

If you really think that's not true...you need to pay a LOT more attention to what Democrats (not Republicans, but actual Democrats) are saying.

I've had this same conversation with I think it was JuanValdez, over some of these issues (open borders, mainly)...and I think he did eventually realize that indeed there are a LOT of Democrats advocating these positions. Why do you think the candidates are espousing any of them? Because they don't want to get elected? or...because they DO?? If you think they are fringe positions, kudos to you, as that would place you, as it did him, within the sane element of the Democratic party. But that element is becoming, if it isn't already, the minority within the party. I probably should say anything, as that is a tremendous boon for conservatives anywhere...but almost all of the current crop of Democratic candidates espouse policies that are, well...not going to fare well in any serious debate or discussion. I fervently hope they continue to do so...and the other Democrats, apparently such as yourself, are simply surprised when they become the actual Democratic platform. Because currently that's exactly what is happening.

 

We can so quibble!

Seriously, I read the letter and you can tell by the tone that Mueller is not pleased. But, that's an interpretation of the letter. The letter does not say anything so plain as "I think what you did was wrong." I agree with you that Barr was trying to mislead people with the way he put things to Congress, but it seems like a pretty weak argument if you're talking about actually taking some punitive action against him. It's too gray.

 

I honestly didn't think he was trying to be misleading at all. He said the letter was a summary of the conclusions of the report. Which it was. Mueller never said it wasn't. In fact, Mueller didn't say anything at all...the letter was written by his staff. Plausible deniability. What the letter said the summary conclusion didn't fully capture the nuance and context. Well...duh! It's a freakin' summary! Mueller knows this..so why did he have the letter written? To cover himself later "Oh, but I sent the letter!"

If Mueller disagreed with the summary so much...why didn't he say anything BEFORE it was sent out. They worked together on the redacted and such. Barr offered him the chance to review.

No, that wouldn't have served its purpose, which was purely political. As this whole thing is.

 

No, I said Free College will lead to that and I've pointed you to my original quote already to verify that. Free college meaning the government will pay off the student loans (loan forgiveness both current and future).

I'm not sure why you're so intent on twisting what I've said.....maybe too embarrassed to admit it? Or simply a troll? Either way, I'm done with this dumb "argument" you insist on trying to have.

 

PLEASE do this. PLEASE.

 

Curious where your number comes from? Seems whatever attraction or interest in "socialism" is likely really tied to programs or ideas that may seem "socialist" more than an overall desire for "socialism".

Fewer than 1 in 5 see socialism favorably: poll

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brie...ewer-than-1-in-5-see-socialism-favorably-poll

This article cites a range of polls, including this one:

Is Socialism Popular Or Is Socialism Polling Popular?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bowman...or-is-socialism-polling-popular/#2ec860e4813d

 

Barr said so. That's another question they can ask Mueller when he testifies.

EDIT: The other thing I find interesting about this idea that Mueller sent a letter as a CYA. Barr describes a phone conversation with Mueller (knowing Mueller won't comment on it to the press), for which you can't just read the transcript. We know what Mueller said because he wrote it (signed his name to it, if you don't think he wrote it) -- but Barr would have us believe him about what Mueller meant. He is, again, supplying an interpretation of the plain words Mueller wrote down on paper. Barr doesn't have a great track record on interpreting things. I'm supposed to believe Mueller's concern was how the media behaved when the letter is pretty clear that it was Barr's summary that was the problem? When a high official has a letter written on official letterhead and signs his name to it and puts it into the official record, that's a pretty official communication. That was the point of sending a letter instead of making a phone call. It's official, it's unambiguous, and it's in the record forever.

 

I'm saying it's a difference without a distinction.

Whether or not he was lying, he was trying to mislead and he wasn't telling the 'whole truth and nothing but the truth'. So whether it can be technically qualified as a lie doesn't really matter.

 

barr didn't even say so... he flippantly suggested he thought a Mueller staff member *probably* wrote it when he was calling the letter "snitty." barr is always using weasel words.

 

Ok name the candidates who are advocating any 5 of these topics.

Name any Democrat who has a leadership position in Congress who are advocating for 5 of these topics.

Name all of the candidates who advocate for open borders.

no that's not exactly what's happening you are creating your perfect storm for democrats.

 

i am not twisting your words I linked to the exact post where you mentioned loan forgiveness and college graduates.

You are the one who is twisting things and you should be embarrassed by that take.

 

I agree with you. Unless we're talking about accusing Barr of committing a crime, impeaching him for such a crime, or indicting him for lying to Congress or perjuring himself under oath -- then I think you're loony toons.