Traitor Trump

[Dutch Lane]

Barr omitted the reason Mueller made his investigation so factually thorough.

From Barr's letter to Congress:

"After making a ['thorough factual investigation'] into these matters, the special counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

From the Mueller Report, Volume II, Page 2:

"Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting president may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the president's term is permissible. The OLC opinion also recognizes that a president does not have immunity after he leaves office. And if individuals other then the president committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted [a thorough factual investigation] in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available."

Barr failed to explain to Congress in his letter that Mueller was leaving open the possibility that prosecutors in the future, after Trump leaves office, could still look at the evidence he gathered and decide then whether to indict Trump. That rationale which came from the view of the OLC that sitting presidents cannot be indicted but former presidents lose that immunity conflicted with Barr's spin to rush to announce Mueller had cleared Trump. Which he did not. Swing away :thumb:

Mueller told Barr that he didn't not conclude that Trump objected justice because of the policy to not indict a sitting president.

Barr promptly released virtually all of the Mueller report. The letter was never intended as a summary. It was intended to provide a glimpse of the main conclusions of Mueller, and it did.

Again, please do some analysis and original thinking. Stop with the Dem talking points.

You have a "didn't not" in your first statement. What exactly are you trying to say there? Could you restate or rephrase that?

He didn't promptly release anything. He released his own summary letter rather then release the two executive summaries that Mueller had prepared for immediate release while the full report was being redacted. Barr sat on the release of the Mueller report for something like 17 days or 17 news cycles, after he had released his 4 page "glimpse of the main conclusions."

The letter that you say "was never intended to be a summary" however states:

"I believe it is in the public interest to describe the report and *summarize* the principle conclusion reached by the Special Counsel and the results of his investigation." (Barr letter to Congress, Paragraph 2). Its almost like you didn't even bother to read the Barr letter.

The definition of summarize: (verb)- to give a brief statement of the main point of (something). Synonyms: abridge, condense, encapsulate, outline, recap, recapitulate, digest, review, abstract. Words do matter and have specific meanings, please do try harder to use them correctly.

Swing and a big miss on this one PR. Strike one there big guy, but keep on swinging away you are bound to make contact sooner or later:thumb:

 

[Dutch Lane]

Keep swinging PR. I"ll put this one on a T-ball for you to make it easier to hit.

Barr omitted words suggesting that there was complicit conduct that fell short of coordination.

From the Barr letter to Congress:

"The special counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: ['[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.'"]

From the Mueller Report, Volume I, Page 1:

The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, [the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.]

See how Barr took a larger passage in which the Mueller report suggested that the Trump campaign and the Russian government were knowingly dancing together at a distance, and then excerpted a fragment to make it look like a cleaner exoneration.

Your retort? Swing batter, batter, swing. :thumb:

 

[Dutch Lane]

Last one PR, now keep your eye on the ball.

Barr truncated Mueller's explanation of what "coordination" meant -- and didn't mean.

From the Barr letter to congress:

"In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the special counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign 'coordinated' as an ['agreement' -- tacit or express -- between the Trump campaign and the Russian government on election interference.'"]

From the Mueller Report, Volume I, Page 2:

"We understood coordination to require an [agreement -- tacit or express -- between the Trump campaign and the Russian government on election interference.] That requires more than two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests."

In the second sentence, which Barr omitted, Mueller again emphasized that there can be a type of complicit conduct that falls short of how the special counsel defined coordination.

You're still at bat PR, but don't miss this one or its like strike three there big guy. :thumb:

 

[PlayerRep]

Barr omitted the reason Mueller made his investigation so factually thorough.

From Barr's letter to Congress:

"After making a ['thorough factual investigation'] into these matters, the special counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

From the Mueller Report, Volume II, Page 2:

"Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting president may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the president's term is permissible. The OLC opinion also recognizes that a president does not have immunity after he leaves office. And if individuals other then the president committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted [a thorough factual investigation] in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available."

Barr failed to explain to Congress in his letter that Mueller was leaving open the possibility that prosecutors in the future, after Trump leaves office, could still look at the evidence he gathered and decide then whether to indict Trump. That rationale which came from the view of the OLC that sitting presidents cannot be indicted but former presidents lose that immunity conflicted with Barr's spin to rush to announce Mueller had cleared Trump. Which he did not. Swing away :thumb:

Mueller told Barr that he didn't not conclude that Trump objected justice because of the policy to not indict a sitting president.

Barr promptly released virtually all of the Mueller report. The letter was never intended as a summary. It was intended to provide a glimpse of the main conclusions of Mueller, and it did.

Again, please do some analysis and original thinking. Stop with the Dem talking points.

You have a "didn't not" in your first statement. What exactly are you trying to say there? Could you restate or rephrase that?

He didn't promptly release anything. He released his own summary letter rather then release the two executive summaries that Mueller had prepared for immediate release while the full report was being redacted. Barr sat on the release of the Mueller report for something like 17 days or 17 news cycles, after he had released his 4 page "glimpse of the main conclusions."

The letter that you say "was never intended to be a summary" however states:

"I believe it is in the public interest to describe the report and *summarize* the principle conclusion reached by the Special Counsel and the results of his investigation." (Barr letter to Congress, Paragraph 2). Its almost like you didn't even bother to read the Barr letter.

The definition of summarize: (verb)- to give a brief statement of the main point of (something). Synonyms: abridge, condense, encapsulate, outline, recap, recapitulate, digest, review, abstract. Words do matter and have specific meanings, please do try harder to use them correctly.

Swing and a big miss on this one PR. Strike one there big guy, but keep on swinging away you are bound to make contact sooner or later:thumb:

I meant what I said. Said another way, Mueller told Trump that the Policy of not charging a sitting president was not the reason he didn't conclude Trump should be charged.

Do you really not understand the difference between summarizing principal conclusions of a report, and summering the report. The letter was not a summary of the report. It set forth the principal findings. Mueller told Barr that he didn't didn't think Barr's summary of the principal findings was incorrect.

Also, "principal", not "principle".

You lost this one.

 

[PlayerRep]

Keep swinging PR. I"ll put this one on a T-ball for you to make it easier to hit.

Barr omitted words suggesting that there was complicit conduct that fell short of coordination.

From the Barr letter to Congress:

"The special counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: ['[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.'"]

From the Mueller Report, Volume I, Page 1:

The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, [the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.]

See how Barr took a larger passage in which the Mueller report suggested that the Trump campaign and the Russian government were knowingly dancing together at a distance, and then excerpted a fragment to make it look like a cleaner exoneration.

Your retort? Swing batter, batter, swing. :thumb:

Again, you just admitted that the principal conclusion/finding was correct. No "coordination" was found. It doesn't matter that there had been other interaction. Mueller's charge was to look for illegal coordination, and he found none. That's why no one, whether a Trumpee or any other American, was charged. Barr could not have stated the principal finding/conclusion on Russian collusion better. He used Mueller's words.

You lost this one too.

 

[PlayerRep]

Last one PR, now keep your eye on the ball.

Barr truncated Mueller's explanation of what "coordination" meant -- and didn't mean.

From the Barr letter to congress:

"In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the special counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign 'coordinated' as an ['agreement' -- tacit or express -- between the Trump campaign and the Russian government on election interference.'"]

From the Mueller Report, Volume I, Page 2:

"We understood coordination to require an [agreement -- tacit or express -- between the Trump campaign and the Russian government on election interference.] That requires more than two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests."

In the second sentence, which Barr omitted, Mueller again emphasized that there can be a type of complicit conduct that falls short of how the special counsel defined coordination.

You're still at bat PR, but don't miss this one or its like strike three there big guy. :thumb:

See my prior post. I'm not going to repeat myself, even though that seems to be your style. You lost this one too.

You are long-winded, and not to the point. Throw quotes at the wall. And then try to declare you've made a point.

If your briefs are like this, opposing counsel and judges must laugh at you behind your back.

 

[argh!]

Declassifying the bullshit which has gone on for over the past two years will shed light on the Hillary/DNC/Deep State's attempts to keep Trump out of the White House. I think this will be like a sledge hammer blow right between the eyes. :shock: Let the prosecutions begin. Lock 'em all up.

if he is going to declassify stuff, it should be all of it, not just a one-sided spin like his 'summary' of mueller's report. and yes, greenie, you made some valid points in this thread, but on that particular issue your arguments are weak.

 

[tourist]

if he is going to declassify stuff, it should be all of it, not just a one-sided spin like his 'summary' of mueller's report. and yes, greenie, you made some valid points in this thread, but on that particular issue your arguments are weak.

Sit down, argh!
I'd hate for you to fall down. I agree with you! :shock:
Declassify everything.
That summary was three pages too long. Could have been one sentence. 'No crime, no collusion, and I just wasted two years of my life and $35 million of taxpayers money.

 

[argh!]

if he is going to declassify stuff, it should be all of it, not just a one-sided spin like his 'summary' of mueller's report. and yes, greenie, you made some valid points in this thread, but on that particular issue your arguments are weak.

Sit down, argh!
I'd hate for you to fall down. I agree with you! :shock:
Declassify everything.
That summary was three pages too long. Could have been one sentence. 'No crime, no collusion, and I just wasted to years of my life and $35 million of taxpayers money.

except there were a lot of crimes, which is why trump associates are going to jail.

 

[tourist]

I hope you didn't fall down. If you did, its your fault. I warned you.
I'd like to see Washington, D.C. culled of every crooked bastard there. "Drain the swamp." That resonates with lots of people.
This includes the Deep State which has been talked about since the election. Did you see that Rep. Liz Cheney has characterized the Strzok-Page eMails as 'a coup' attempt, and 'treason'? Apparently, she reads this forum. I have a following! :lol:

 

[PlayerRep]

Declassifying the bullshit which has gone on for over the past two years will shed light on the Hillary/DNC/Deep State's attempts to keep Trump out of the White House. I think this will be like a sledge hammer blow right between the eyes. :shock: Let the prosecutions begin. Lock 'em all up.

if he is going to declassify stuff, it should be all of it, not just a one-sided spin like his 'summary' of mueller's report. and yes, greenie, you made some valid points in this thread, but on that particular issue your arguments are weak.

Some or much of the stuff can't be declassified, as it would reveal too much about sources and methods. Like the person supposedly close enough to Putin to be able to pass along Putin-specific info.

Intel and FBI have been resisting providing info about the exact origins of the Russia collusion investigation, and now Barr has been put in charge of straightening out what happened and what can be disclosed.

Again, Barr's 4-page letter was not one-sided and was not spin. It summarized the principal conclusions of the Mueller report, often using quotes and paraphrases from the Mueller report. Mueller told Barr that he did not have issues with the summer of the report's principal conclusions. Mueller and his team were mostly concerned about the media and others were using Mueller's letter.

"Barr testified that he called Mueller after receiving his complaints and Mueller told him he hadn't "misrepresented" the report. Instead, Barr said Mueller told him he was upset that the press coverage was reading too much into the letter." http://www.startribune.com/key-takeaways-from-ag-barr-s-testimony-mueller-s-letter/509336261/

Note that Barr was not obviated to even release the report, or any summary, but he released virtually the whole report. It is the AG's job to deal with the report. Mueller's was to do the investigation/report, and then turn it over to the AG. At that point, Mueller's job was done.

You need to look deeper than Dem talking points.

 

[PlayerRep]

if he is going to declassify stuff, it should be all of it, not just a one-sided spin like his 'summary' of mueller's report. and yes, greenie, you made some valid points in this thread, but on that particular issue your arguments are weak.

Sit down, argh!
I'd hate for you to fall down. I agree with you! :shock:
Declassify everything.
That summary was three pages too long. Could have been one sentence. 'No crime, no collusion, and I just wasted to years of my life and $35 million of taxpayers money.

except there were a lot of crimes, which is why trump associates are going to jail.

No Trumpee or any other American was charged with any crime involving or related to Russian collusion. A few were charged with lying to a federal agent or Congress. Flynn probably won't go to jail. Popadoulous served 12 days in a minimum security prison. Manafort committed a bunch of financing and IRS crimes in the years well prior to the Trump campaign. He's sentenced for along time. But none of it had anything to do with Russia or Trump or the Trump campaign. Gates will go to jail, but, again, nothing to do with Russia or Trump or campaign. Cohen is rotten and in jail. Good place for him.

 

[argh!]

"Barr testified that he called Mueller after receiving his complaints and Mueller told him he hadn't "misrepresented" the report. Instead, Barr said Mueller told him he was upset that the press coverage was reading too much into the letter." http://www.startribune.com/key-takeaways-from-ag-barr-s-testimony-mueller-s-letter/509336261/

You need to look deeper than Dem talking points.

did you not read the letter from mueller to barr regarding the 'summary' barr released? even barr described it as 'snitty', or something along those lines. and a minnesota newspaper article as a definitive reference? ok...

as far as talking points, i don't pay attention to either party's talking points. i actually loathe the two party system that dominates our politics and elections. it leads to group-think, intellectual laziness, and an us-versus-them mentality. but that's another subject...

 

[PlayerRep]

"Barr testified that he called Mueller after receiving his complaints and Mueller told him he hadn't "misrepresented" the report. Instead, Barr said Mueller told him he was upset that the press coverage was reading too much into the letter." http://www.startribune.com/key-takeaways-from-ag-barr-s-testimony-mueller-s-letter/509336261/

You need to look deeper than Dem talking points.

did you not read the letter from mueller to barr regarding the 'summary' barr released? even barr described it as 'snitty', or something along those lines. and a minnesota newspaper article as a definitive reference? ok...

as far as talking points, i don't pay attention to either party's talking points. i actually loathe the two party system that dominates our politics and elections. it leads to group-think, intellectual laziness, and an us-versus-them mentality. but that's another subject...

Yes, I read the Mueller letter. I read it the day it was released. It doesn't say that Barr's letter had incorrectly stated the principal conclusions. It said this: "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of Mueller’s work. It said nothing about the findings or conclusions, as Mueller later confirmed to Barr in a phone conversation.

Barr's comment on what Mueller told him was from his Congressional testimony. It's been reported all over the media. I actually was watching his testimony when he said that. It was also reported in DOJ release/statement. Jeez argh, do some research or reading if you're going to try to discuss this. I read about 10 articles and opinion pieces on this subject per day.

 

[argh!]

"Barr testified that he called Mueller after receiving his complaints and Mueller told him he hadn't "misrepresented" the report. Instead, Barr said Mueller told him he was upset that the press coverage was reading too much into the letter." http://www.startribune.com/key-takeaways-from-ag-barr-s-testimony-mueller-s-letter/509336261/

You need to look deeper than Dem talking points.

did you not read the letter from mueller to barr regarding the 'summary' barr released? even barr described it as 'snitty', or something along those lines. and a minnesota newspaper article as a definitive reference? ok...

as far as talking points, i don't pay attention to either party's talking points. i actually loathe the two party system that dominates our politics and elections. it leads to group-think, intellectual laziness, and an us-versus-them mentality. but that's another subject...

Yes, I read the Mueller letter. I read it the day it was released. It doesn't say that Barr's letter had incorrectly stated the principal conclusions. It said this: "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of Mueller’s work. It said nothing about the findings or conclusions, as Mueller later confirmed to Barr in a phone conversation.

Barr's comment on what Mueller told him was from his Congressional testimony. It's been reported all over the media. I actually was watching his testimony when he said that. It was also reported in DOJ release/statement. Jeez argh, do some research or reading if you're going to try to discuss this. I read about 10 articles and opinion pieces on this subject per day.

i watched his testimony, too. i also read the original documents, i.e. 'summary', mueller report, etc... i don't need to read a bunch of opinion pieces to tell me what to think. wasn't it just you yourself who wrote that the media is full of lies, etc?

 

[PlayerRep]

"Barr testified that he called Mueller after receiving his complaints and Mueller told him he hadn't "misrepresented" the report. Instead, Barr said Mueller told him he was upset that the press coverage was reading too much into the letter." http://www.startribune.com/key-takeaways-from-ag-barr-s-testimony-mueller-s-letter/509336261/

You need to look deeper than Dem talking points.

did you not read the letter from mueller to barr regarding the 'summary' barr released? even barr described it as 'snitty', or something along those lines. and a minnesota newspaper article as a definitive reference? ok...

as far as talking points, i don't pay attention to either party's talking points. i actually loathe the two party system that dominates our politics and elections. it leads to group-think, intellectual laziness, and an us-versus-them mentality. but that's another subject...

Yes, I read the Mueller letter. I read it the day it was released. It doesn't say that Barr's letter had incorrectly stated the principal conclusions. It said this: "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of Mueller’s work. It said nothing about the findings or conclusions, as Mueller later confirmed to Barr in a phone conversation.

Barr's comment on what Mueller told him was from his Congressional testimony. It's been reported all over the media. I actually was watching his testimony when he said that. It was also reported in DOJ release/statement. Jeez argh, do some research or reading if you're going to try to discuss this. I read about 10 articles and opinion pieces on this subject per day.

i watched his testimony, too. i also read the original documents, i.e. 'summary', mueller report, etc... i don't need to read a bunch of opinion pieces to tell me what to think. wasn't it just you yourself who wrote that the media is full of lies, etc?

Most of the media, or mainstream media, does not misquote what people say in writing, press releases, testimony, etc. Some of the liberal media seemed to not give the point much coverages, but multiple sources did cover it.

Mueller apparently told Barr that Barr's letter hadn't misrepresented any principal conclusion.

Do you think a principal conclusion of the report was misrepresented? If so, which one or ones?

No matter what you or the Left would like, Mueller did not find any Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Why is it so hard for some people to accept that.

Mueller also did not find that Trump should be charged with any obstruction of justice. So, Barr and Rosenstein, the top two federal prosecutors in the US, determined that there had not been any obstruction of justice.

Why don't the Dems get back to pushing their issues and campaigning, trying to counter what Trump is doing, and trying to win the 2020 election?

 

[argh!]

did you not read the letter from mueller to barr regarding the 'summary' barr released? even barr described it as 'snitty', or something along those lines. and a minnesota newspaper article as a definitive reference? ok...

as far as talking points, i don't pay attention to either party's talking points. i actually loathe the two party system that dominates our politics and elections. it leads to group-think, intellectual laziness, and an us-versus-them mentality. but that's another subject...

Yes, I read the Mueller letter. I read it the day it was released. It doesn't say that Barr's letter had incorrectly stated the principal conclusions. It said this: "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of Mueller’s work. It said nothing about the findings or conclusions, as Mueller later confirmed to Barr in a phone conversation.

Barr's comment on what Mueller told him was from his Congressional testimony. It's been reported all over the media. I actually was watching his testimony when he said that. It was also reported in DOJ release/statement. Jeez argh, do some research or reading if you're going to try to discuss this. I read about 10 articles and opinion pieces on this subject per day.

i watched his testimony, too. i also read the original documents, i.e. 'summary', mueller report, etc... i don't need to read a bunch of opinion pieces to tell me what to think. wasn't it just you yourself who wrote that the media is full of lies, etc?

Most of the media, or mainstream media, does not misquote what people say in writing, press releases, testimony, etc. Some of the liberal media seemed to not give the point much coverages, but multiple sources did cover it.

Mueller apparently told Barr that Barr's letter hadn't misrepresented any principal conclusion.

Do you think a principal conclusion of the report was misrepresented? If so, which one or ones?

No matter what you or the Left would like, Mueller did not find any Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Why is it so hard for some people to accept that.

Mueller also did not find that Trump should be charged with any obstruction of justice. So, Barr and Rosenstein, the top two federal prosecutors in the US, determined that there had not been any obstruction of justice.

Why don't the Dems get back to pushing their issues and campaigning, trying to counter what Trump is doing, and trying to win the 2020 election?

andrew yang. https://www.yang2020.com/

not saying i'll vote for him, or anything. but makes you think twice.

 

[Yukon]

 

[argh!]

yep, knew about the russian misinformation campaign to benefit trump, and didn't say anything, giving the donald a big advantage with those unable to figure out fact from fiction. like yukon, it appears.

 

[tourist]

sounds more like your confession...