T1B

Left Seater wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 2:45 am

Diego in Seattle wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:46 pm 2,800+ subpoenas
500+ witnesses

Yet we're supposed to believe that the guy who got his job writing a memo against the investigation was able to review all that evidence w/in 48 hours.

Sure, Jan...sure.

Your assuming the report didn’t have a summary? Your even dumber than we thought.

Jsc wrote:Well I was among those who were wrong, sure I admit it. I was wrong not only by the conclusion but the scope of the investigation as well, I thought Mueller was going to get into anything and everything that he found.

You know, all the stuff that has been reported on by the NYT, like tax evasion, money laundering, and campaign finance violations.

Left Seater wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:33 am Again, you are assuming Mueller didn’t include a summary to the report when he turned it in? One he wrote or at least signed off on?

Mikey wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 12:41 pm

Left Seater wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:33 am Again, you are assuming Mueller didn’t include a summary to the report when he turned it in? One he wrote or at least signed off on?

Are you assuming that it did?

Jsc810 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 6:36 am You know, all the stuff that has been reported on by the NYT, like tax evasion, money laundering, and campaign finance violations.

Left Seater wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 7:38 pm Yes. Damn near any professional document has an executive summary. Most Government docs I saw when I was with GD had them if they were over a few pages.

mvscal wrote:This is a guy who has been audited every single year...and nothing.

Softball Bat wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2019 1:26 am

mvscal wrote:This is a guy who has been audited every single year...and nothing.

Link?

Left Seater wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 7:38 pm

Mikey wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 12:41 pm

Left Seater wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:33 am Again, you are assuming Mueller didn’t include a summary to the report when he turned it in? One he wrote or at least signed off on?

Are you assuming that it did?

Yes. Damn near any professional document has an executive summary. Most Government docs I saw when I was with GD had them if they were over a few pages.

Lard wrote:Meanwhile, Jsc is the only one who has manned up

.088 wrote:I watched a documentary about flat erfer’s on Netflix last night. You are more disturbed than I imagined. Get help.

Mikey wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 3:06 pm

smackaholic wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 1:28 pm My point, you fukking retard, is that no matter what this report says, it will not say "TGOF did not collude with Russia".

That's funny, because it's exactly what the entire Republican party is claiming it says.

Jsc810 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2019 10:27 am

mvscal wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2019 1:14 amIt's time to face the fact that Trump might actually be the most squeaky clean politician in the game today.

"My colleagues might think it's OK that when that was offered to the son of the president, who had a pivotal role in the campaign, that the president's son did not call the FBI; he did not adamantly refuse that foreign help -- no, instead that son said that he would 'love' the help with the Russians.

"You might think it's OK that he took that meeting. You might think it's OK that Paul Manafort, the campaign chair, someone with great experience running campaigns, also took that meeting. You might think it's OK that the president's son-in-law also took that meeting. You might think it's OK that they concealed it from the public. You might think it's OK that their only disappointment after that meeting was that the dirt they received on Hillary Clinton wasn't better. You might think that's OK.

"You might think it's OK that when it was discovered, a year later, that they then lied about that meeting and said that it was about adoptions. You might think that it's OK that it was reported that the president helped dictate that lie. You might think that's OK. I don't.

"You might think it's OK that the campaign chairman of a presidential campaign would offer information about that campaign to a Russian oligarch in exchange for money or debt forgiveness. You might think that's OK, I don't.

"You might think it's OK that that campaign chairman offered polling data to someone linked to Russian intelligence. I don't think that's OK.

"You might think it's OK that the president himself called on Russia to hack his opponent's emails, if they were listening. You might think it's OK that later that day, in fact, the Russians attempted to hack a server affiliated with that campaign. I don't think that's OK.

"You might think it's OK that the president's son-in-law sought to establish a secret back channel of communication with the Russians through a Russian diplomatic facility. I don't think that's OK.

"You might think it's OK that an associate of the president made direct contact with the GRU through Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks, that is considered a hostile intelligence agency. You might think it's OK that a senior campaign official was instructed to reach that associate and find out what that hostile intelligence agency had to say in terms of dirt on his opponent.

"You might think it's OK that the national security adviser designate secretly conferred with the Russian ambassador about undermining U.S. sanctions, and you might think it's OK that he lied about it to the FBI.

"You might say that's all OK, that's just what you need to do to win. But I don't think it's OK. I don't think it's OK. I think it's immoral, I think it's unethical, I think it's unpatriotic and, yes, I think it's corrupt -- and evidence of collusion."

"Now I have always said that the question of whether this amounts to proof of conspiracy was another matter. Whether the special counsel could prove beyond a reasonable doubt the proof of that crime would be up to the special counsel, and I would accept his decision, and I do. He's a good and honorable man, and he is a good prosecutor.

"But I do not think that conduct, criminal or not, is OK. And the day we do think that's OK is the day we will look back and say that is the day that America lost its way."

"And I will tell you one more thing that is apropos of the hearing today: I don't think it's OK that during a presidential campaign Mr. Trump sought the Kremlin's help to consummate a real estate deal in Moscow that would make him a fortune -- according to the special counsel, hundreds of millions of dollars. I don't think it's OK to conceal it from the public. I don't think it's OK that he advocated a new and more favorable policy towards the Russians even as he was seeking the Russians' help, the Kremlin's help to make money. I don't think it's OK that his attorney lied to our committee. There is a different word for that than collusion, and it's called 'compromise.'

Yes, I own the fact that I was wrong, again.

However, my position on Trump and his family and associates has not changed. He absolutely is unfit to serve as the POTUS.

Mikey wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2019 2:31 pm Republican eunuchs

Softball Bat wrote:2. The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

LS wrote:Again, you are assuming Mueller didn’t include a summary to the report when he turned it in? One he wrote or at least signed off on?

Left Seater wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2019 12:26 pm

Softball Bat wrote:2. The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

While there is no evidence to say that you run a human trafficking ring, we also can’t say that you don’t.

See how that works?

Left Seater wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2019 4:53 pm I have no clue. But if there wasn’t a summary, then this whole 18 months is a waste and shows the “quality” is Mueller.

Left Seater wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2019 12:26 pm

Softball Bat wrote:2. The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

While there is no evidence to say that you run a human trafficking ring, we also can’t say that you don’t.

See how that works?

Members of Robert Mueller’s team are reportedly disputing the way William Barr has characterized their conclusions, telling close associates in recent days that the four-page summary the attorney general released last month “failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry,” and suggesting that the special counsel’s full report is potentially damaging to President Donald Trump. On Wednesday, The New York Times was first to report on the frustrations among investigators, who remained notoriously tight-lipped about their work for the duration of the nearly two-year probe. Shortly after, The Washington Post published a similar account, reporting that some members of the Mueller team say evidence that Trump obstructed justice is “alarming and significant.”

In addition, people familiar with the matter told the Post that some people on Mueller’s team were “disappointed” that Barr chose not to release summaries by their office. “There was immediate displeasure from the team when they saw how the attorney general had characterized their work instead,” one official told the Post. (Two government officials told the Times that, in declining to publish the summaries, Barr was attempting to guard against the release of sensitive information.)

Both reports seem to contest Trump’s giddy proclamations that Mueller’s investigation resulted in his “Complete and Total EXONERATION,” and have stoked demands by Democrats for Mueller’s findings to be released in full. “The AG should release the FULL #MuellerReport now,” Representative Eric Swalwell, a prominent critic of the president in the Russia investigation, tweeted Wednesday evening. “His credibility is at stake.”

Last month, Barr told lawmakers that Mueller “did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.” Furthermore, Barr wrote, the special counsel did not determine “one way or the other” if the president had obstructed justice, leaving it to him and Rod Rosenstein to decide on the matter. The Trump-appointed attorney general and his deputy “concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”

While it isn’t clear if any on Mueller’s team take issue with how Barr described the collusion investigation, sources suggested to the Times and the Post that investigators are “frustrated” with how the attorney general characterized their findings on obstruction. “It was much more acute than Barr suggested,” a source told the Post.

Barr, who wrote a memo critical of Mueller’s obstruction-of-justice inquiry prior to his confirmation, has faced significant criticism over the four-page summary of the nearly 400-page report, which Mueller turned in on March 22. Democrats say the Barr letter, submitted to Congress just days after Mueller finished his probe, is insufficient, and some have raised questions about Barr’s decision to clear Trump on obstruction. But the president, who has long railed against the so-called “witch hunt”, and, at times, seemed to publicly admit that he sought to impede it, has gone on the attack against members of the media and lawmakers he’s accused of pushing the Russia probe. He initially welcomed the release of the full report, saying, “It wouldn’t bother me at all.”

But as Democrats have ramped up their efforts to obtain the report (Barr told lawmakers he would put out a redacted version by the middle of this month), Trump has seemed to change his tune, lashing out at “crazed democrats” like Jerrold Nadler, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, which approved subpoenas for the report and investigatory materials Wednesday, for requesting more information. “There is nothing we can ever give to the Democrats that will make them happy,” Trump tweeted Thursday morning, in the wake of the Times and Post reports. “This is the highest level of Presidential Harassment in the history of our Country!”

Trump’s about-face has contributed to the narrative that Mueller’s full report is more damning than Barr’s letter implies. The apparent dissatisfaction by some on Mueller’s team, and the fact that the notoriously buttoned-up team is leaking at all, will only fuel suspicions that Barr’s summary was political in nature, and Trump’s victory lap was premature. “It’s been my assumption that a 400-page report has an executive summary already, and so of course it begged the question, ‘Why did Barr feel the need to release his own summary?’” Rep. Adam Schiff said Wednesday night. “Why didn’t he release a summary produced by Bob Mueller itself, instead of trying to shape it through his own words?”

Diego In Seattle wrote:2,800+ subpoenas
500+ witnesses

Yet we're supposed to believe that the guy who got his job writing a memo against the investigation was able to review all that evidence w/in 48 hours.

Sure, Jan...sure.

poptart wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:55 pm

LS wrote:Again, you are assuming Mueller didn’t include a summary to the report when he turned it in? One he wrote or at least signed off on?

If Mueller wrote a summary, why didn't Barr release that, instead of the summary that he made up?

Goober McTuber wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2019 6:32 pm [quote]Members of Robert Mueller’s team are reportedly disputing the way William Barr has characterized their conclusions, telling close associates in recent days that the four-page summary the attorney general released last month “failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry,” and suggesting that the special counsel’s full report is potentially damaging to President Donald Trump. On Wednesday, The New York Times was first to report on the frustrations among investigators, who remained notoriously tight-lipped about their work for the duration of the nearly two-year probe. Shortly after, The Washington Post published a similar account, reporting that some members of the Mueller team say evidence that Trump obstructed justice is “alarming and significant.”

In addition, people familiar with the matter told the Post that some people on Mueller’s team were “disappointed” that Barr chose not to release summaries by their office. “There was immediate displeasure from the team when they saw how the attorney general had characterized their work instead,” one official told the Post. (Two government officials told the Times that, in declining to publish the summaries, Barr was attempting to guard against the release of sensitive information.)

Both reports seem to contest Trump’s giddy proclamations that Mueller’s investigation resulted in his “Complete and Total EXONERATION,” and have stoked demands by Democrats for Mueller’s findings to be released in full. “The AG should release the FULL #MuellerReport now,” Representative Eric Swalwell, a prominent critic of the president in the Russia investigation, tweeted Wednesday evening. “His credibility is at stake.”

Last month, Barr told lawmakers that Mueller “did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.” Furthermore, Barr wrote, the special counsel did not determine “one way or the other” if the president had obstructed justice, leaving it to him and Rod Rosenstein to decide on the matter. The Trump-appointed attorney general and his deputy “concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”

While it isn’t clear if any on Mueller’s team take issue with how Barr described the collusion investigation [uh, what?], sources suggested to the Times and the Post that investigators are “frustrated” with how the attorney general characterized their findings on obstruction. “It was much more acute than Barr suggested,” a source told the Post.

Barr, who wrote a memo critical of Mueller’s obstruction-of-justice inquiry prior to his confirmation, has faced significant criticism over the four-page summary of the nearly 400-page report, which Mueller turned in on March 22. Democrats say the Barr letter, submitted to Congress just days after Mueller finished his probe, is insufficient, and some have raised questions about Barr’s decision to clear Trump on obstruction. But the president, who has long railed against the so-called “witch hunt”, and, at times, seemed to publicly admit that he sought to impede it, has gone on the attack against members of the media and lawmakers he’s accused of pushing the Russia probe. He initially welcomed the release of the full report, saying, “It wouldn’t bother me at all.”

But as Democrats have ramped up their efforts to obtain the report (Barr told lawmakers he would put out a redacted version by the middle of this month), Trump has seemed to change his tune, lashing out at “crazed democrats” like Jerrold Nadler, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, which approved subpoenas for the report and investigatory materials Wednesday, for requesting more information. “There is nothing we can ever give to the Democrats that will make them happy,” Trump tweeted Thursday morning, in the wake of the Times and Post reports. “This is the highest level of Presidential Harassment in the history of our Country!”

Trump’s about-face has contributed to the narrative that Mueller’s full report is more damning than Barr’s letter implies. The apparent[to whom?] dissatisfaction by some on Mueller’s team, and the fact that the notoriously buttoned-up team is leaking at all, will only fuel suspicions that Barr’s summary was political in nature, and Trump’s victory lap was premature. “It’s been my assumption that a 400-page report has an executive summary already, and so of course it begged the question, ‘Why did Barr feel the need to release his own summary?’” Rep. Adam Schiff said Wednesday night. “Why didn’t he release a summary produced by Bob Mueller itself, instead of trying to shape it through his own words?”






From Vanity Fair, BTW.