• Mueller report will be sent to the White House before the public for redactions
    64 replies, posted
It doesn't matter how little or how much they redact, Democrats are going to continue to demand an unredacted version, to which they will say Democrats are unappeasable, which will further entrench the right that the left cannot be compromised with and the cycle continues.
But if the report exonerates Trump, why in the 9 hells do they wanna cover it up so bad, hmm??? God this administration sickens me to my core.
the superior timeline http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-4444
I mean it really doesn't matter what Democrats do. The right are actively looking to entrench themselves further no matter how flimsy the excuse is.
Revolution now.
nothing will be done about, in a way, this outcome is preferable for democrats prior election - it keeps narrative about report's crucial info about Trump being preserved by GOP and whitehouse.
Do you guys really think there’s collusion in the full report and Mueller is just sitting by quietly and letting the Attorney General and the WH blatantly lie about what’s in his report? This is the same guy who called out BuzzFeed for misrepresentating him. I want to see the full report as much as anyone, but you’re honestly dreaming if you think there’s some hidden bombshell that’s going to sink Trump.
I think he's leaving the determination to the AG and Congress and, as such, he has no true 'legal opinion' on the matter and so, therefore, is professionally obligated to sit on his ass quietly.
Barr's summary says that Mueller left the determination of obstruction of justice to him and Rosenstein, and they obviously didn't indict him for obstruction. We need to see what the report says about obstruction because Mueller may have intended to hand that off to Congress to determine whether he should be impeached just like during Watergate.
Sorry but that’s just ridiculous. He’s the head law enforcement officer of the special counsel and he’s indicted multiple people and recommended multiple charges for various crimes. How does he not have a legal opinion for the investigation he was in charge of?
His legal opinion may well be: 1: We have ironclad proof that demonstrates that the Trump Campaign had contacts with the Russian government. 2: Those contacts were through intermediaries 3: The law requires for those contacts to be made with the President knowing that he was conspiring with a foreign government rather than dealing with individuals from another government. 4: To prove that the President knew that requires proof that we were not able to obtain. We were able to obtain clear indications that the President most likely knew, but 'most likely knew' does not clear the bar for me, where I require 90% certainty that I can win the case -- and intent is incredibly difficult to prove. 5: Congress doesn't need to charge the President with a crime but deserves to know the extent of the contacts he made, what was promised, and who promised what and when. Whether the totality of all those contacts and agreements constitutes an impeachable offense, which does not require '90% certainty', I will leave to the Congress to find. I leave the determination on whether or not DOJ will pursue indictment on these charges in the hands of the AG with my aforementioned legal opinion attached. There you go. A legal opinion from a consummate professional whose opinion is 'the President shouldn't be indicted; not because there doesn't exist evidence to indict them, but that the evidence is not strong enough that it perfectly and clearly demonstrates intent, and so I don't recommend indictment -- but I may recommend impeachment and heightened counter-intelligence measures to be engaged on Russia'.
Because that's not his legal duty to make that determination. A sitting president cannot be indicted according to his interpretation of Justice Department policy, so it would be improper of him to make that call.
Again, if that’s Mueller’s actual findings then Barr is just baldly lying about something that’s going to be made public one way or the other. Mueller did not find collusion, or contacts, or even intent, or it would have been detailed in the summary.
Oh, yes, because Barr baldly lying about things to save the GOP's ass would be breathtaking because he's never done that befo- https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/133737/48b945e0-66d0-4393-91fa-2ea67ba234eb/image.png
Somebody just leak it already.
Absolutely is. His job is to recommend or not recommend indictment. Finding that the President behaved grossly improperly and endangered the nation in the meanwhile for his own personal profit isn't "a crime".
Tell you what, if Mueller wrote in the full report that there was collusion and Mueller and his team are just letting Barr shamelessly and publicly lie about it because they’re spineless cowards with no principles about justice, permaban me. If the Democrats subpoena Mueller I guarantee he will say it himself.
You're falling for the trap. Why would Mueller write anywhere in his report 'that there was collusion'? He's investigating to see if there were contacts -- and if there was a conspiracy to defraud the United States. Not collusion. So Barr saying 'nowhere in this report does Mueller say the President committed collusion' is very likely accurate regardless of how true it might wind up being that the President did or didn't conspire with Russia to defraud the elections.
Honestly I'm not gonna be surprised if the report found no direct evidence of collusion, but I'm more interested in what it says outside of that. Mueller's investigation was about a lot more things than the Russians, he dove into a lot of Trump's financial dealings, which has the potential to be very unflattering to Trump.
Hey guys, we found no evidence of Trump colluding nor obstruction, even though Barr made his decision on obstruction a year ago. Also the investigation found all these crimes and resulted in 37 convictions and all that, but Trump is clear! Great, can we see it? Well, no. We really want to see it. Okay, let me just send it off to the White House so they can claim executive privilege and black out 3/4 the report, then you can see it Fuck this government
It's amazing how badly the White House fucks everything up these days. I felt like this was a big blow to the left until they've acted so shady about this supposed exonerating report. It'll do nothing to convince anyone but his base. I'm mostly mad now at the media for lapping it up. I got headlines from NYT on my phone uncritically accepting what Barr said about the report.
Well that's the thing, it's only gonna be a blow to the left if the report actually does exonerate him. If it does then that's still going to be a victory when it releases publicly. But if it doesn't exonerate him, then this spin cycle is going to be their only shot at cushioning the impact. Really the best thing the media could have done was to ignore any statements from the White House until the report is actually released, but that would contest with the fact that Barr's summary is news.
That would go against Barr's own statement however, in which he says the report specifically does not exonerate the President.
https://www.businessinsider.com/william-barr-trump-mueller-report-confirmation-review-edit-2019-1 So Barr told Congress in January he wouldn't do this
don't you worry about [blank] it has no bearing on whether I committed [blank] in [blank] with 3 [blank] [blank blank blank] hippo [blank] waterskiing on a tuesday
Yeah, well, he said he wouldn't do a lot of things. Here's a list: Will not allow the President or his attorneys to edit or change the special counsel report before it is submitted to Congress or the Public. Will come to Congress to explain deletions/changes made to the report before it's issued. Will not stand by and allow the President to fire a U.S. Attorney if they don't have a cause to do so beyond 'stopping an unlawful investigation'. Things he didn't commit to: Recusing himself due to a conflict of interest. Recusing himself at the recommendation of an ethics committee if he 'came to a different judgment'. That the President can be charged with Obstruction of Justice Getting out as much information as possible (as he consistently qualified it with 'within the scope of the regulations' which is a cop-out as he has enormous breadth to determine, generally, 'what the scope is' for releasing that information) Oh and here's some things he did commit to: Trump has never instructed him to fire Mueller Trump has never asked him to interfere with Mueller's investigation Nobody in the white house has asked him to interfere with Mueller's investigation Nobody in the western hemisphere has asked him to interfere with Mueller's investigation It's impossible to secure a 1,900 mile border without 'barriers' ICE should not be abolished. Making the 'final report' public. He has never visited a port of entry to the United States. If the President attempted to conceal evidence he would consider that Obstruction of Justice. Would not narrow his definition to 'corruptly' committing Obstruction of Justice (in other words, holding someone innocent because he felt they didn't mean to obstruct justice) How many of these do you think he's going to break?
[http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-2013] Hmm
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1110889456536612867
If they're innocent the report won't harm their reputation. Also, i've never heard McConnell talk before. I was expecting his voice to have a higher pitch.
Ah yes, like the “innocent” Paul Manafort whose life was ruined by the investigation :’’’’( dicks out for paulie
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.