Ex-FBI Director Mueller appointed DOJ Special Counsel

[snapper]

I don't care what you hope. Both by law and by policy, the DOJ is not allowed to hand over an unredacted report. What happens in the Grand Jury stays in the Grand Jury and you have zero authority to demand to see it. By policy, intel assets will not be disclosed just to give you willies that Trump is under survelliance.

You have absolutely zero say in the matter and your conclusions are based on your own wet dreams and nothing on reality.

Hope goes with life and what about Congressional oversight duties?

[snapper]

you're a fucking idiot.

Ouch! I am so insulted!

plain and simple.

Double ouch? is that what you want?

you didn't here what you wanted to here, so now you are burying your head in the sand.

Do you speak another language? Perhaps we could speak in French or Polish as it seems you have trouble with English and cannot understand your meaning in the above "you didn't here what you wanted here..."

go back to your original point and prove that, which everyone knows you cant, so you spout off with this drivel that has no bearing or basis in reality. i'm not asking a 4th time, you couldn't support a single claim you made, and you cant now.

My original 'claim' which was not mine at all but reported news was that Barr had misrepresented Muellers report in his summary. Having read Muellers redacted report I fully agree. Barr lied it about it at least twice in testimony I will add. Mueller damn well says so in the March 27 letter but again your English comprehension or political bias - I do not know which it is - forbids you from seeing or acknowledging the facts. It was you that challenged me regarding these particulars that seemed to me obvious to all so if you wish to disprove me please go ahead. I know your Trumpkin international crime syndicate is going down. You are trying to save the sinking ship.

So please let me ask you if you still think Mueller was worried about the press coverage in his May 27 letter to Barr? Do you think Mueller was happy with Barr's 'summary letter' or not? I mean I do not find the language that equivocal but your interpretation of the letter would be at least amusant.

you are a fraud and everyone knows it.

You are more than welcome to come visit me in Ukraine later this month if you wish. No need to pay for hotels if you want to see my life when I go back - you can sleep on a mattress like I usually do.

you can try to obscure things as much as you want, you cant hide your bullshit posts.

Yes yes... of course Mueller had a problem with the press coverage. Get over yourself. I could not give two hoots about you or what you think of me. You are either stupid or deliberately misinterpreting normal English language usage. Insulting me degrades you not I but I forgive you because I know you will hate it. See we Christians like to forgive right?

[snapper]

grr

[TopHatter]

you're a fucking idiot.

Don't attack another member like that again.

[Wooglin]

This montgomery guy got banned for continuing to use questionable sources. Snapper just continually makes up facts and provides no sources, yet remains.

Interesting standards

[Officer of Engineers]

Hope goes with life and what about Congressional oversight duties?

Congress has zero rights to demand the DOJ to break the law nor the authority to expose intelligence assets all just for your wet dreams.

[Wooglin]

If that is the case, then Barr should have no problem acquiescing to release Mueller's summaries as per the Special Counsel's letter. It would certainly squash any lingering suspicions or disputes from the House committees.

Well that is the case, since he released the whole report. You would think that would end it since the conclusions within, in Muellers own words, arent going to change. But this is all just political theater. Just more ridiculous than usual.

[TopHatter]

This montgomery guy got banned for continuing to use questionable sources. Snapper just continually makes up facts and provides no sources, yet remains.

Interesting standards

Please do not comment publicly on moderating decisions. If you have an issue with something, please PM a mod or the admin. Thank you.

[bfng3569]

Ouch! I am so insulted!



Double ouch? is that what you want?



Do you speak another language? Perhaps we could speak in French or Polish as it seems you have trouble with English and cannot understand your meaning in the above "you didn't here what you wanted here..."



My original 'claim' which was not mine at all but reported news was that Barr had misrepresented Muellers report in his summary. Having read Muellers redacted report I fully agree. Barr lied it about it at least twice in testimony I will add. Mueller damn well says so in the March 27 letter but again your English comprehension or political bias - I do not know which it is - forbids you from seeing or acknowledging the facts. It was you that challenged me regarding these particulars that seemed to me obvious to all so if you wish to disprove me please go ahead. I know your Trumpkin international crime syndicate is going down. You are trying to save the sinking ship.

So please let me ask you if you still think Mueller was worried about the press coverage in his May 27 letter to Barr? Do you think Mueller was happy with Barr's 'summary letter' or not? I mean I do not find the language that equivocal but your interpretation of the letter would be at least amusant.



You are more than welcome to come visit me in Ukraine later this month if you wish. No need to pay for hotels if you want to see my life when I go back - you can sleep on a mattress like I usually do.



Yes yes... of course Mueller had a problem with the press coverage. Get over yourself. I could not give two hoots about you or what you think of me. You are either stupid or deliberately misinterpreting normal English language usage. Insulting me degrades you not I but I forgive you because I know you will hate it. See we Christians like to forgive right?

I've asked you repeatedly to show where Mueller disagrees with the findings.

you keep going back to context.

show were Barr lied. Show where Mueller disagrees with the findings. You haven't, and you can't.

you are a fraud, it's been shown numerous times here before, and you are doing it again.

i'd suggest you look up the words in an English dictionary because they mean two different things.

p.s. your forgiveness is not needed, my opinion of you has not changed in some time. it is amusing though that you comment about me insulting you and how that reflects upon me, while in the same sentence calling me stupid.

but i am going to guess that is lost on you, just like most everything else.

[snapper]

I've asked you repeatedly to show where Mueller disagrees with the findings.

you keep going back to context.

show were Barr lied. Show where Mueller disagrees with the findings. You haven't, and you can't.

you are a fraud, it's been shown numerous times here before, and you are doing it again.

i'd suggest you look up the words in an English dictionary because they mean two different things.

p.s. your forgiveness is not needed, my opinion of you has not changed in some time. it is amusing though that you comment about me insulting you and how that reflects upon me, while in the same sentence calling me stupid.

but i am going to guess that is lost on you, just like most everything else.

First you try to tell me that Mueller was complaining about media coverage of his report - which was not then released but yea Trumpkin was calling them names. Can you tell me where you find this?

Then you try to tell me that a 'summary of conclusions' is not a summary.

Now you try tell me ""The summary letter the Department sent to Congress late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this Offices work and conclusions" actually means "Yea Barr my old chum! I think you captured our findings superbly in your non summary." If you wish to insist black is white that is your prerogative - may wisdom come to you...

My view of your wilful ignorance I am sorry to say has changed.

[tbm3fan]

I've asked you repeatedly to show where Mueller disagrees with the findings.

you keep going back to context.

show were Barr lied. Show where Mueller disagrees with the findings. You haven't, and you can't.

you are a fraud, it's been shown numerous times here before, and you are doing it again.

i'd suggest you look up the words in an English dictionary because they mean two different things.

p.s. your forgiveness is not needed, my opinion of you has not changed in some time. it is amusing though that you comment about me insulting you and how that reflects upon me, while in the same sentence calling me stupid.

but i am going to guess that is lost on you, just like most everything else.

Since you didn't read the report it makes sense that you don't understand what Mueller was saying in his letter. Mueller is very by the book in both nature and as a lawyer. Since I have read the entire report and then did see his letter I can see exactly where he is coming from. He is being subtle in comment to the AG regarding how the contents were handled. It isn't snitty although I would excuse that being as how his report has been misconstrued by the AG. I think he is pretty clear in his letter that he is not happy in his lawyerly manner.

If you care to discuss the Mueller report I can go over it section by section with you.

As we stated in our meeting of March 5 and reiterated to the Department early in the
afternoon of March 24, the introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report
accurately summarize this Office's work and conclusions. The summary letter the Department
sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture
the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions. We communicated that
concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is new public confusion about
critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose
for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the
outcome of the investigations. See Department of Justice, Press Release (May 17, 2017).

While we understand that the Department is reviewing the full report to determine what is
appropriate for public release a process that our Office is working with you to complete that
process need not delay release of the enclosed materials. Release at this time would alleviate the
misunderstandings that have arisen and would answer congressional and public questions about
the nature and outcome of our investigation. It would also accord with the standard for public

[bfng3569]

Since you didn't read the report it makes sense that you don't understand what Mueller was saying in his letter. Mueller is very by the book in both nature and as a lawyer. Since I have read the entire report and then did see his letter I can see exactly where he is coming from. He is being subtle in comment to the AG regarding how the contents were handled. It isn't snitty although I would excuse that being as how his report has been misconstrued by the AG. I think he is pretty clear in his letter that he is not happy in his lawyerly manner.

If you care to discuss the Mueller report I can go over it section by section with you.

And Barr is also very by the book in both nature and as a lawyer.

Discuss? You mean you tell me where i, and the AG are wrong, and you are right, seeing as you are already claiming the report (i assume you mean the whole thing) has been 'misconstrued' by Barr (and Rosenstein, and everyone else in that office).

you see it one way, i see it another.

Until Mueller comes out and says anything that contradicts what Barr has said, its a pointless effort anyway.

and yes, the letter was snitty.

[bfng3569]

First you try to tell me that Mueller was complaining about media coverage of his report - which was not then released but yea Trumpkin was calling them names. Can you tell me where you find this?

Then you try to tell me that a 'summary of conclusions' is not a summary.

Now you try tell me ""The summary letter the Department sent to Congress late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this Offices work and conclusions" actually means "Yea Barr my old chum! I think you captured our findings superbly in your non summary." If you wish to insist black is white that is your prerogative - may wisdom come to you...

My view of your wilful ignorance I am sorry to say has changed.

i posted the link to Barr's testimony, go watch it.

and if you cant follow simple English and keep moving the goal posts, thats up to you.

and the ultimate example of 'willful ignorance'.

[astralis]

Barr just played the standard lawyer's trick of selective information.

he took parts and pieces of the Mueller report in his 4 page "description" that could be construed to favor the President, while inserting items that the Mueller report explicitly says it does not address (ie, collusion-- on the basis that collusion is not a legal term).

that's why Mueller complained.

and that's also why Barr is doing legal tap-dancing now by saying his "description" was not meant to be a summary of the Mueller report, lol.

[tbm3fan]

And Barr is also very by the book in both nature and as a lawyer.

Discuss? You mean you tell me where i, and the AG are wrong, and you are right, seeing as you are already claiming the report (i assume you mean the whole thing) has been 'misconstrued' by Barr (and Rosenstein, and everyone else in that office).

you see it one way, i see it another.

Until Mueller comes out and says anything that contradicts what Barr has said, its a pointless effort anyway.

and yes, the letter was snitty.

I don't know why I should take the time to explain something to someone who can't take the time to read for themselves to educate themselves. Remaining ignorant is never an option in my book when the material is there to learn from.

What Barr did was provide his Cliff Note version of the Cliff Notes and not from a disinterested party. Hell, my notes I took are longer than his summary.

Section 1 of the report dealt with conspiracy since collusion is not a legal term. To be to the point Mueller did not clear the Trump campaign of conspiracy. He also states he could not provide the slam dunk conclusive evidence that a Federal prosecutor needs to get a solid conviction. He notes he was hampered by lying witnesses, unavailable witnesses, and evidence such as emails that he couldn't get his hands on. In short he has evidence but he can't clear nor can he submit charges at this time on criminal conspiracy. One should know criminal conspiracy can be very hard to prove even when everybody knows what happened.

As for collusion just general reading would show several instances where collusion occurred if a layman reads the report. In the end Trump is incorrect when he says NO COLLUSION and so is Barr. The only part Barr is semi-correct on is not proceeding with criminal charges. Not because there isn't proof but because there isn't enough evidence to convict at this time. One could bring charges later should more evidence present itself.

Section 2 deals with obstruction. Now when a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around, does the tree make a sound? Obstruction? When is it and when isn't it ... wink, wink. I saw two clear cases of obstruction by Trump where he tried to interfere through an intermediary and where he tried to get a false document inserted into the White House files. None of that is any different from Nixon asking Elliot Richardson to fire the Special Prosecutor. Richardson refused and resign as did he 2nd in command. Nixon finally got someone to do it. Trump asking McGahn to do similar is pretty much the same thing. So I'm sure that a tree does make a noise even when I am not around.

When Mueller sums up this section he acknowledges that he can't indict a sitting President and it is not his charge. He is an investigator and not a prosecutor in this situation. He does not refer this to the AG for his opinion but directs his comments towards Congress to evaluate. It is their position to decide if there is enough for an impeachment charge. Barr steps in here were he wasn't asked to. One can see that by jumping in first he can set the tone of what the report said before anyone else could get a chance by reading it. Saying not guilty is far better than saying he looks dirty some. So in the end Mueller was warranted in his letter given that someone was twisting his report. I do the same damn thing.

I don't know why I explained this to you since you will just dismiss. Trump loves people like you as you are just like him. He doesn't like to read anything yet thinks he is intelligent. You aren't intelligent if you don't read. You didn't read the report just sayin'. Since he doesn't read and you don't read he can say whatever he chooses and doesn't have to worry about his fans checking on him. That is why he could get away with shooting someone in Time's Square as his fans will turn their backs and say they didn't see a thing.

Anyway no more of my time...

Edit: Turns out I was being very generous. Well I am not a trained lawyer so may not know the finer aspects in the Mueller report. As I said there were two slam dunk obstructions I saw and another six that could have been. Well it seems 380 former prosecutors from both sides say there were 10 instances of obstruction on which they would have filed charges and been confident of proving and winning. That makes Barr's statement worthless and that Trump is guilty of obstruction as much as anybody else who faced similar charges.