Mueller complained that Barr’s letter did not capture ‘context’ of Trump probe

I am currently in the process of plowing through the Report. From what I have read so far, you couldn't be more wrong.

 

So many lies in one post... let's start at the beginning

"The Executive Branch is not stonewalling." - False

(1) They provided every document requested immediately. Over 1.4 million pages in total
(2) They provided every witness requested.
(3) Barr did not have to testify in front of the Senate.​

"Congress doesn't have the Mueller report." - False

(4) Congress has the Mueller Report and can check the unredacted version if they so choose. They were not entitled to it by law they created after the Starr Report, but Barr gave it to them anyways.​

"Barr is refusing to testify." - False

(5) He just testified all day in front of the U.S. Senate
(6) He has agree to testify in front of the U.S. House of Representatives, but the Democrats have made an unprecedented rule change and want to bring in their own lawyers. This is never done. If they do it the normal way, he will show up.
​

"Impeachment isn't an option..." - False

(7) The House of Representatives can Impeach him tomorrow. There is no barrier for them. I don't think you understand what impeachment actually means.
​

Your claims and the truth are at odds in easily identified ways as proven above. I don't know where you get your information, but you are either not understanding, or are being lied to.

 

No, there was sound evidence of Russian involvement in our election in favor of Trump.

Suggesting that was something that should not be investigated is just plain silly.

And, let's remember the tens of indictments, guilty pleas, and jail terms that have resulted - including for TWO of Trump's campaign managers.

 

Kinda like the Benghazi investigations.

 

That is hogwash. How in the hell is he being a dictator? He has acted no differently than any other recent President. He is a narcissist with the biggest ego in any room and he certainly does not know when to keep his mouth shut (even when it would help him) and the crap that comes out of that mouth (or fingers) is beyond distasteful quite often, but he is certainly no acting like a dictator. He is acting like a inexperienced politician.

Mueller seems to be a by-the-book type of person. It is not rebelling. It is doing his job. He knows the question of Presidential immunity is unproven in court and that is just the excepted opinion. He could have easily submitted a brief of an Intent to Indict. It is not his responsibility to carry out the indictment. That is what we have courts for.

 

They have refused to release a less redacted Mueller report and the supporting documentation.

Mnuchin is stonewalling.

So, false on you!

They have a redacted version without the supporting documentation.

Their request for the rest has been denied.

Plus, Barr lied to the nation concerning Mueller's findings, leaving these documents especially necessary in demonstrating the truth.

Where was he today?

Golf?

I've repeatedly claimed that impeachment is the ONLY OPTION!!!

DoJ policy is that there is no other option in prosecuting a sitting president.

??

 

I seriously do not understand why some people can not understand that an underacted version could not be given to members of Congress. It is against the law to do so......period. Congress DOES have access to an unredacted version, though. In a secure room....as it is suppose to be, because it is the law.

I'm not sure what you are talking about with supporting documents. I believe everything was in Mueller's report. Not sure what "supporting documents" you are talking about or what would be needed.

EDIT: The supporting documents can even be found online:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/litigation-documents-related-mueller-investigation

 

"By the book" does not mean "ready to create a Supreme Court test case to challenge the DoJ for whom he works".

Besides, there really isn't any likelihood that such a case would win in the SC. The reasoning for not charging a sitting president isn't weak.

 

There absolutely are unnecessary redactions when it comes to being viewed by the House Intelligence committee or other such committees. They have the right to see highly classified information.

The larger issue is the large body of supporting evidence that is not physically attached to the report.

 

Why not? He is a lawyer. Why wouldn't a lawyer trust in the Judicial System?

So what if it would win or not. If it would not win, then it is a weak case. You may believe the "policy" is weak, but many people with legal experience and work for the DOJ Legal Counsel disagree with you....since 1973.

 

No they do not. Congress is not above the law.....unless you are suggesting that Democrats break the law...or require the AG to break the law. And how would you know any redaction was unnecessary???

Here are the supporting documents:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/litigation-documents-related-mueller-investigation

I would seriously doubt that Mueller would have left any "evidence" out of his report. Are you suggesting that Mueller withheld information in his report to a Government Agency??

 

HE DID trust the judicial system!

YOU were suggesting that he should NOT trust the judicial system.

 

How am I suggesting that he NOT trust the Judicial System? If he felt there was a case against Trump, he should have been very clear that indictment was appropriate. He did not do that. That is not "trusting in the Judicial System".

 

I did NOT claim congress is above the law.

No, every indication is that Mueller gave the full body of his investigation to the AG.

BUT, the AG only gave Mueller's final report to congress - NOT the full body of information. Remember that the evidence developed by the Mueller investigation would go WAY beyond a final report. Mueller didn't just burn the evidence.

And, congress got a redacted version of the final report - which is a fact, though perhaps not as large an issue as congress getting the full body of information, which they have every right to see.

 

You just do not seem to get it.

1. Those Congress members that are authorized (which I think is all at this time) can see an unredacted version....in a secure room.
2. A unredacted version CANNOT be released in a way that it can be leaked to the public. THAT IS AGAINST THE LAW!!!!!!

 

He DID. He outlined a prosecution of Trump for obstruction. He itemized the individual elements required to prove obstruction. Then for each element he martialed the evidence to prove Trump guilty.

What YOU suggested that he do was to go against the DoJ interpretation of the constitution that a sitting president may not be charged. You suggested that he should have charged a sitting president REGARDLESS of current DoJ constitutional interpretation.

Mueller is NOT a guy who would see it as his job to take on the DoJ for whom he worked. He worked WITHIN the framework of our judicial system - a system his actions show that he trusted.

 

I have always pointed out your #2.

Your #1 isn't acceptable. Congressional committees need better access than that.

 

What you find acceptable is irrelevant. If you think the law needs to be changed, then write your Congressperson.

I somewhat agree with you on how the system should work, however, how you think the system should work seems to be far from reality based on laws presently on the books.

 

Barr didn't recommend an indictment of Trump, so the lefties are throwing a temper tantrum.

No crime, no time.

 

I listened to all hearings completely where Barr testified. The Democrats asked if Muller communicated to him that he did not agree with the first summary letter Barr released to Congress and Barr said no. Because the letter from Muller did not disagree with the bottom line facts Barr released , which he only released due to pressure by Democrats because they didn't want to wait for the redacted report; Mueller didn't like the spin by the Press and Government. He wanted Barr to release more to make it cleared and stop the spin. Barr didn't lie as he was asked if the the Muller team disagreed with the letter Barr released. According to the follow-up phone call between the two it was clear they did not. And in my opinion the letter was meant to between the two, not for release. Who released the latter with approval of Muller?

Imo and many current and former DOJ attorneys, Barr did not lie.

Period.

 

What does charging him have to do with anything?

 

Overreach?? Should Impeach

 

The Democrats asked Barr (On 4/9) if he knew the Special Counsels office had any issues with his summary, and he said "I don't know". Remember that on 4/9, the public and Congress did not know about Mueller's letter.

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

But I'm willing to believe Barr simply misunderstood the question, and his "I don't know" was to the substance of Mueller's issues vs the presence of them. It was not the clearest question in the world, but my wife (English major) and I had no trouble determining what the question Crist was seeking to get an answer to.

Those are your only 2 options... He lied or he misunderstood.... I'd support the second if I were you and be happy.

 

Quoted from your link.

Democrat asked: “Reports have emerged recently, general, that members of the Special Counsel’s team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24th letter, that it does not adequately or accurately necessarily portray the report’s findings. Do you know what they’re referencing with that?”

Barr said: “No, I don’t.”

“I suspect that they probably wanted more put out, but in my view, I was not interested in putting out summaries or trying to summarize,” he added.

He was truthful because Mueller was asked if there was a problem with his report findings to which Mueller replied no. The second part of the quote supports the conversation Barr said the two had.

Barr didn’t lie. The report findings were never in question.

 

Lied or misunderstood the question... you are going with misunderstood, and that's fine...

You seem to be misunderstanding the question as well, but that's also fine... If you can do it, I guess I can see how Barr can...

I bold the SUBJECT (from English class) of the sentence..

Democrat asked: “Reports have emerged recently, general, that members of the Special Counsel’s team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24th letter, that it does not adequately or accurately necessarily portray the report’s findings. Do you know what they’re referencing with that?”