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

A lawyer being interviewed on Fox today said that the portion of the report dealing with Obstruction that is redacted is about 2%, so we are talking about a really small portion of the report.

In addition, Barr and his deputies have made available to select members a version with minimal redactions -- and Democrats have declined to look at it.

Why wouldn't Nadler et al simply walk over to the nearest SCIF and examine it? Wouldn't that be simpler than holding a sitting AG in contempt?

 

A "lawyer", on "fox news", said... compelling.

 

Dems are desperate.

The collusion narrative failed.
The tax/income narrative is ever changing.

May as well hold Barr in contempt as a pitiful consolation prize.

 

If you have information to the contrary, please link it. I had no reason to suspect he was being dishonest.

 

Perhaps if you would have named the lawyer, or better linked an article or video clip. Otherwise we have "someone said something on fox news"...

 

That mostly did happen, so your point?

There is absolutely no way anyone who supported Obama, Clinton, and the DoJ colluded, with CLEAR ACTUAL obstruction of justice could have any issue at all over this. Yet here they all are, displaying their hyprocrisy and lack of integrity for all the world to see.

Usually trying to wrap themselves up in some false cloak of justice, when it CLEARLY is exactly the witch hunt they say it isn't.

 

Barr DID show up. He just didn't show up for the follow on political circus. So, your point???

 

Watch at about the 50 second mark

 

Except not even close.

Hillary CLEARLY and COMPLETELY obstructed justice. She destroyed multiple pieces of evidence. The DoJ colluded with the Clinton's...where is your collusion ire over that? Comey provided a far shorter summary...which completely contradicted the actual evidence and report...where is your ire over that??

Trump didn't actuallly do anything that constituted obstruction. Even the things he talked about doing wouldn't have been obstruction if he had done them...which he didn't. So, no, sorry...just because you say they are the same doesn't make it so. If you really are against obstruction and collusion...you need to demonstrate it when the Democrats so clearly work the system in their favor. If not...just repeating political rhetoric, which the Democratic party so relies on its sheeples to do.

 

Meaning the actual issue is with MUELLER, but they appointed him, so can't go down that path.

Funny how there is no outcry over Mueller, just Barr.

 

If Trump DID what Hillary did, would absolutely be for prosecution. Notice that Republicans turned against Nixon when Nixon broke the law. Not really any similar analogy on the Dem side...so, sorry, that finger gets pointed back in your direction.

Trump didn't DO anything that constituted obstruction of justice. Even the things he talked about doing didn't constitute obstruction of justice. Hillary actually did obstruct justice...destroying multiple pieces of evidence, clearly and intentionally. On top of that, the Comey summary actually did completely contradict the evidence...where was the clamoring over his conclusions then (which overstepped his bounds, too, btw...it isn't up to him to make recommendations based onypunishment, only present their findings). The DoJ clearly colluded with the Clintons over this, with Obama's blessings (as no repurcussions). I'm SURE you can point to multiple posts indicating your outrage over this? If not...then you are clearly just a political mouthpiece, and we should rightly just tune you out.

 

Ridiculous amount of contact? What makes it 'ridiculous'? Trump conducted business in Russia, and had dealings with them because of it. This was essential to the story the Democrats concocted. They knew it would stick because Trump DID have business dealing with Russia, and hence would have had contact with theml

You mean the Steele dossier, which has MANY questions around it?

If that is 'per the Mueller report' how on earth did he not find grounds for indicating obstruction occurred??

So, you wouldn't try to stop a baseless investigation into yourself, particularly when it preventing you from focusing on far more important things which had far more significance? Interesting.

Plus, for that matter...for their to be obstrution of Justice...something needs to actually obstruct it. You know, like Hillary destroying evidence on multiple occassions. That kind of stuff. TALKING about it isn't a crime...ever.

... and demonstrate you were similarly concerned or outraged on the MULTIPLE times this happened under Obama, and with the Clintons, with FAR MORE evidence of actual obstruction and clear collusion. Until then, completely agree...no reason at all to be taken seriously.

 

For review...

 

Its hard to break a habit after condemning everything trump for 3 years. I hope i dont return to this forum after the playoffs. Just skimming this thread gives me a headache

 

She didn't have to...others did it for her. Right in front of us...yet, curiously, no outrage from the left at all. Hmmmm...

It would, if it were even close to being true. Your saying it doesn't make it so. Trump certainly has lots of issues, but none of them reach the level of the Clintons...not really even close at all. Yet Dems were just fine with all those, and have lots of faux outrage now.

 

Thanks for providing the video... it does help understand the context of the former prosecutor's statement. Wonder where the 2% came from (his guess?). But for context, Jon Sales is a close friend of rudy giulani. May mean nothing, but it does seem the former prosecutor has been on a number of fox news shows providing pro-trump legal commentary.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/26/trump-associates-mueller-investigation-1186392

 

daily signal? What infowars missed out on the investigation?

 

Did you read the Mueller Report? Mueller found substantial evidence and reasonable inference that trump acted with intent to impede the investigation. The Report listed ten (10) instances where trump potentially committed obstruction of justice. And Mueller said "efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.”

Here are the ten instances: (1) Trump asking James Comey to let Michael Flynn go; (2) Trump’s reaction to the Russia investigation; (3) The firing of James Comey; (4) Mueller’s appointment and efforts to oust him; (5) Efforts to curtail the Russia investigation; (6) Attempts to stop the public from seeing the evidence; (7) Trump trying to get Jeff Sessions to take back control of the investigation; (8) Trump telling Don McGahn to deny that the president had wanted the special counsel removed; (9) Trump’s team asking Flynn for a “heads up” on information and commending Paul Manafort for not “flipping”; (10) The president’s changing behavior toward Michael Cohen.

This is all in the report, obstruction is covered in Volume II. Here's a link to get the report: https://www.cnet.com/news/mueller-report-how-to-read-the-doc-online-or-download-the-pdf-for-free/.

 

Who is complaining about Mueller. The problem is with barr... even Mueller wrote a letter to complain about barr...

https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-robert-muellers-letter-bill-barr

 

I am not talking about the business dealings. I am talking about the multiple links specifically spelled out in the Mueller report that included Russian offers of assistance to the campaign.

No I don't mean the Steele Dossier. I mean the Mueller Report.

If you read the report it is pretty clear that he did find grounds for indicting, but despite what Barr says, did not indict because of the DOJ policy of not indicting sitting presidents. This is legitimately the weakest argument against obstruction. Read the report and figure out why Mueller didn't indict. Hint: it's not because there wasn't cause to.

I really think you just have to ignore the evidence or be willfully ignorant of it a this point to argue against it. If Trump wasn't President it is pretty clear that he would be charged with Obstruction of Justice.

No. First of all this argument is based on the false premise that Trump himself is able to decide if he is guilty or not, which is ridiculous. If you accept that Trump doesn't have the power to decide this, then why should he be able to just stop an investigation into him? That makes no sense.

Who can decide if Trump's campaign committed a crime? The whole investigation was started legally and if Trump was innocent he should have just let it runs its course. This is by far the dumbest line of reasoning against obstruction. It is basically "Trump thought he was innocent so he could do whatever he wanted to stop the investigation into him being innocent or guilty."

Oh wow, a Hillary reference. I. Didn't. See. That. Coming...

And the 12 or whatever instances that Mueller found don't count and aren't real? Or have you not bothered to read the any of the actual report?

And by the way, if you think destroying evidence to hinder an investigation is bad then you probably have a problem with what some members of the Trump campaign did according to this quote from the report:

"Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated — including some associated with the Trump Campaign — deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts."

Surely you are outraged now right?

So clearly you are hung up on Obama and the Clintons. Forming an actual argument based on the evidence in the Mueller Report appears to not interest you. The amount of times some people bring up Obama or Hillary when talking about Trump (including Trump himself) is mind boggling. Clinton lost the election... y'all should probably get over it and start dealing with the real world and what is actually happening.