Mueller report: It doesn't tell us how it knows some things.

Have you any proof of that?

 

Mueller is a career FBI man, with all the political corruption that implies, given the record of the Agency under J. Edgar.

He protected the Saudis that exited this country right after 911, and much more.

 

The section in my OP: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...esnt-tell-us-how-it-knows-some-things.554756/

When did I say that Barr's summary letter characterised Mueller's report? I said that his summary letter MATCHED THE CONCLUSION of the Mueller report. (Other than Obstruction of Justice which Mueller didn't make a conclusion on.)

So then why didn't Mueller indict him?

Are you suggesting that there may be evidence that Mueller has overlooked which would have lead him or Barr to indict Trump on Obstruction of Justice? Why would Mueller have kept such evidence hidden? Wouldn't his report contain the very worst and most significant evidence against Trump? What would the release of weaker evidence possibly achieve?

You made this word up didn't you?

Oh, they really want the Democrats to win in 2020? Can you name ANY center right conservatives in the media saying that they won't vote for Trump again?

Why do you only mention "trumpettes?" Isn't it also not good enough for Democrats?

 

How did he protect the Saudis?

 

Alright, but can you see how that doesn't match with the below? No mention of deleting a line.

"In the summer of 2017, the President learned that media outlets were asking questions about the June 9, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between senior campaign officials, including Donald Trump Jr., and a Russian lawyer who was said to be offering damaging information about Hillary Clinton as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump." On several occasions, the President directed aides not to publicly disclose the emails setting up the June 9 meeting, suggesting that the emails would not leak and that the number of lawyers with access to them should be limited. Before the emails became public, the President edited a press statement for Trump Jr. by deleting a line that acknowledged that the meeting was with "an individual who [Trump Jr.] was told might have information helpful to the campaign" and instead said only that the meeting was about adoptions of Russian children."

 

A cute cartoon.

Yes, if Daddy is the US Government and its media, he promotes conspiracy theories weekly. One such theory is that the FBI is an honorable organization, but reality shows that theory to be invalid.

 

Within the bureaucracy he worked, he provided cover for their exit, and helped construct the false narrative regarding their innocence in the events of the day.

Mueller is a career man, a team player. He cares not for truth or justice. He cares only about advancement and the status quo.

 

I'm not sure.
I know. Lets ask him.

 

So you see what I was getting at.

 

Not really. I'm just tired of looking for you.

 

Well it's pretty simple really. The section that refers to deleting a line has no references. This has been my point all along.

 

Not the point. Congressional oversight is a mandated responsibility and the foundation of the separations of power as mandated by the constitution. Congress has a right to know all of what the Mueller investigation uncovered unless it is an issue of national security, in which there is a process where designated members with appropriate clearances can review it.

There' is no legal foundation for your argument that congress doesn't need to see it because they can't do any better than meuller.

 

They know that because of Hope Hicks testimony.

No it didn't match the conclusions of the meuller report. It did not find enough evidence (some of which was destroyed and some testimonies were not obtained) to move forward, it did find lots and lots of evidence that trump campaign members repeatedly interacted with Russian agents and that senior campaign members were aware of the russian government's cyber operations to support trump's election.

And "other than obstruction of justice"? You have a strange definition of "matched the conclusion".

Mueller himself clearly explains why no indictments of the president were possible. YOu keep saying you read the report yet you conveniently forget key points. Odd that.

Nope. The evidence isn't hidden, its clearly articulated in the report.

Nice circle back. tho. I made the point that the underlying evidence was not reviewed by Barr because he accepted the report as truthful of the evidence. But you as a layperson was questioning where is the evidence of the claims meuller made. I told you.

Nope. google is your friend.

Trumpgret is a real thing. get over it.

 

I doubt they want to go trough all that stuff because they really want to make sure Mueller did his job right. They are certainly entitled to do this, but lets not pretend it is a necessary exercise of their oversight responsibility.

I'm fine with letting them do this, I expect they'll each find plenty to leak about, and this will compromise all those ongoing investigations, matters referred to other agencies, probably slander or libel periferal third parties who will institute their own lawsuits, plus the DoJ will need to prosecute the leaking of grand jury material.

Strategically this Russia thing is ideal for Republicans who will spend from here to the next election decrying this senseless Democrat obsession which deprives the government of a productive legislature. With a majority in the House, Democrats could be advancing bold new proposals like that Green New Deal, hiking the minimum wage, wiping out student loan debt, mandating universal healthcare, expanding access to public assistance for immigrants... Yes, I know this would all get shot down in the Senate, but it would look great on the Democrat campaign trail. Instead all Democrats can say they've 'accomplished' over the past two years is to hold this unjustifiable cloud of illegitimacy over the President and kept him from being able to accomplish as much as he could with a less adversarial legislature.

 

Again, it is immaterial whether its necessary or not. Let's not pretend that you know its not.

Well that is one crystal ball prediction. OTOH, I am reassured by your implicit support of the rule of law.

SQUIRREL. Yes, I do believe that all this obstruction on the part of the President will be "ideal for republicans". Yep they'll be ecstatic in defending his massive obstruction of the constitutionally mandated job of congress.

It seems your partisanship subsumes your patriotism. I say patriotism defined by believing that the consitution is the heart of love of country.

I doubt most center right conservatives will continue to support his continuing criminal obstruction.

It seems now the real fight has begun and the law ain't on you dear leader's side. It seems his refusing to cooperate and being forced by the courts to obey the law is his plan to limit exposure of his profound corruption.

AS for legitimacy, the democrats haven't made that a big issue, but we all know its a central issue with your dear leader. Seems he is twitchy about it because he spent 8 years being the champion deligitimizer of Obama - the birth king paranoid of being "birthered" his ownself - priceless.

 

The section that I quoted is from the Executive Summary of Volume II. However, it doesn't match the material later in the report regarding Hope Hicks. There is nothing about Trump, "deleting a line."

Barr's summary letter matched the "PRINCIPLE CONCLUSIONS" of the Mueller report. "Principle conclusions" is the term that Barr used in his letter.
Its not Barr's job to comment on anything else other than the principle conclusions of to prosecute or to not prosecute. Perhaps you can look up what the job of Attorney General includes. I can give you some insight: it doesn't include commenting on embarrassing underlying evidence.

Oh I'm sorry, did Mueller come to a verdict on Obstruction of Justice?

Oh you mean in the report where he MERELY ACKNOWLEDGES the OLC opinion but doesn't say that it is what prevented him from indicting Trump? Perhaps you missed Barr stating to Congress that Mueller said that the OLC opinion didn't prevent him from indicting Trump.

If there is evidence that would be enough to indict Trump, then YES the evidence is hidden from the Mueller report.

And is that a problem?

Actually, you originally said "trumpette", which research tells me is a female Trump supporter!
And I see that you have been unable to name even ONE SINGLE "center right conservative" in the media saying that they won't vote for Trump again!

 

How did he provide cover for their exit?

 

Politics. Shouldn't have to tell you that.

 

By working within the system. You know, inside job. Using influence and position to achieve a goal.

 

When did he say this?

 

Wow. I didn't know that candidates received classified intelligence. I can't understand why this happens.

 

"Mueller report: It doesn't tell us how it knows some things".

They never do.

It's just as well they don't. I have heard enough of "it's classified" or "such information will cause the death of our boys in the field". You know, the boys they continue claiming who are "fighting for our freedoms".

 

Cute. because the report is not the underlying evidence, which in this case is the transcript of her interviews. Evidence point made need not be repeated.

Mueller isn't a judge and he explained exactly what he found, his adherence to DOJ guidance in NOT indicting a sitting president, AND explained that it would be unfair to the president to come to any prosecutorial conclusion, since he would not be able to defend himself in court.

HUH? So what he explicitly wrote in the report and KNEW FROM DAY ONE, is not what he really thought?

No its clearly laid out describing how the evidence meets the requirements under the statutes for obstruction of justice.

Er I see you don't recall me reminding you that the underlying evidence was taken as truth by Barr who admitted he didn't review it, while you were whinging about where's the evidence of what's in the report. Now its not a problem. nice circle 'round.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry...vatives-reelection_n_5cc75b54e4b07c9a4ce7bc8e

the worm turns. keep laffin'.

 

Claim not backed up with any evidence.