Mueller Report Imminent

[LouderVol]

Gowdy's commentary is not ironic to the thread.

I agree, thats pretty spot on actually. media sells the lies their audience wants to hear.

 

[BigOrangeD]

 

[Franklin Pierce]

 

[BowlBrother85]

The New York Times just posted this new nugget to their Twitter account: "Breaking News: Some of Robert Mueller's investigators see their report as more damaging for President Trump than the attorney general indicated."

WASHINGTON -- Some of Robert S. Mueller III's investigators have told associates that Attorney General William P. Barr failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry and that they were more troubling for President Trump than Mr. Barr indicated, according to government officials and others familiar with their simmering frustrations.

At stake in the dispute -- the first evidence of tension between Mr. Barr and the special counsel's office -- is who shapes the public's initial understanding of one of the most consequential government investigations in American history. Some members of Mr. Mueller's team are concerned that, because Mr. Barr created the first narrative of the special counsel's findings, Americans' views will have hardened before the investigation's conclusions become public.

 

[0nelilreb]

The New York Times just posted this new nugget to their Twitter account: "Breaking News: Some of Robert Mueller's investigators see their report as more damaging for President Trump than the attorney general indicated."

WASHINGTON -- Some of Robert S. Mueller III's investigators have told associates that Attorney General William P. Barr failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry and that they were more troubling for President Trump than Mr. Barr indicated, according to government officials and others familiar with their simmering frustrations.

At stake in the dispute -- the first evidence of tension between Mr. Barr and the special counsel's office -- is who shapes the public's initial understanding of one of the most consequential government investigations in American history. Some members of Mr. Mueller's team are concerned that, because Mr. Barr created the first narrative of the special counsel's findings, Americans' views will have hardened before the investigation's conclusions become public.

Did it say who those “ some members “ are ?

 

[BowlBrother85]

Did it say who those “ some members “ are ?

No, they didn't name sources but if true, this confirms the worst fears about Barr... He is a political partisan and his summary of the Mueller team's findings can't be trusted.

 

[0nelilreb]

No, they didn't name sources but if true, this confirms the worst fears about Barr... He is a political partisan and his summary of the Mueller team's findings can't be trusted.

No it doesn’t . It’s a summary he gave of the findings . Mueller and his team of 19 lawyers and 40 FBI agents could have indicted if their was evidence . He’s never had a problem finding evidence and charging people in the past and with this investigation . He didn’t just decide not to because he was tired and wanted it over .

 

[BowlBrother85]

No it doesn’t . It’s a summary he gave of the findings . Mueller and his team of 19 lawyers and 40 FBI agents could have indicted if their was evidence . He’s never had a problem finding evidence and charging people in the past and with this investigation . He didn’t just decide not to because he was tired and wanted it over .

Yes, but those are Barr's words; not Mueller's. This story in The New York Times is basically calling Barr's summary of the Mueller report a misrepresentation of it's findings. It definitely appears that Attorney General Barr wanted to sell the American people on his own partisan narrative before they had a chance to reach a conclusion for themselves as to what the Mueller team had found during their investigation.

 

[DancingOutlaw]

Yes, but those are Barr's words; not Mueller's. This story in The New York Times is basically calling Barr's summary of the Mueller report a misrepresentation of it's findings. It definitely appears that Attorney General Barr wanted to sell the American people on his own partisan narrative before they had a chance to reach a conclusion for themselves as to what the Mueller team had found during their investigation.

If things are being so badly represented why is Mueller staying quiet?

 

[0nelilreb]

Yes, but those are Barr's words; not Mueller's. This story in The New York Times is basically calling Barr's summary of the Mueller report a misrepresentation of it's findings. It definitely appears that Attorney General Barr wanted to sell the American people on his own partisan narrative before they had a chance to reach a conclusion for themselves as to what the Mueller team had found during their investigation.

He will be the one that has to decide if there’s enough to charge a sitting president ( I’m assuming on the obstruction ) since he said mueller found no American colluded with Russia . This is all going to come down to another “ it depends on the definition of what the word is ..is “ one side will say it’s not enough the other will say are you blind it’s all right there in black and white .

 

[DC_Vol]

Yes, but those are Barr's words; not Mueller's. This story in The New York Times is basically calling Barr's summary of the Mueller report a misrepresentation of it's findings. It definitely appears that Attorney General Barr wanted to sell the American people on his own partisan narrative before they had a chance to reach a conclusion for themselves as to what the Mueller team had found during their investigation.

The Times has no credibility these days.

 

[BowlBrother85]

If things are being so badly represented why is Mueller staying quiet?

We don't know what is going on behind the scenes. Barr has released a statement separate from the summary clarifying that it was just a "summary of the principle conclusions" and trying to explain why certain redactions would be made. This shouldn't surprise anyone... of course, William Barr was always going to initially present a watered down summary of Mueller's findings, as low on specifics as possible and high on generalizations and legalese. The next course of action is to redact as much as possible from the report before it is revealed to Congress. This is exactly why Trump nominated him for Attorney General in the first place... and to ensure that he would never be charged with any crimes, of course.

 

[golfballs]

The New York Times just posted this new nugget to their Twitter account: "Breaking News: Some of Robert Mueller's investigators see their report as more damaging for President Trump than the attorney general indicated."

WASHINGTON -- Some of Robert S. Mueller III's investigators have told associates that Attorney General William P. Barr failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry and that they were more troubling for President Trump than Mr. Barr indicated, according to government officials and others familiar with their simmering frustrations.

At stake in the dispute -- the first evidence of tension between Mr. Barr and the special counsel's office -- is who shapes the public's initial understanding of one of the most consequential government investigations in American history. Some members of Mr. Mueller's team are concerned that, because Mr. Barr created the first narrative of the special counsel's findings, Americans' views will have hardened before the investigation's conclusions become public.

New York Times... according to anonymous sources

 

[Boca Vol]

He will be the one that has to decide if there’s enough to charge a sitting president ( I’m assuming on the obstruction ) since he said mueller found no American colluded with Russia . This is all going to come down to another “ it depends on the definition of what the word is ..is “ one side will say it’s not enough the other will say are you blind it’s all right there in black and white .

Is that his way of saying Barry was involved?

 

[C-south]

We don't know what is going on behind the scenes. Barr has released a statement separate from the summary clarifying that it was just a "summary of the principle conclusions" and trying to explain why certain redactions would be made. This shouldn't surprise anyone... of course, William Barr was always going to initially present a watered down summary of Mueller's findings, as low on specifics as possible and high on generalizations and legalese. The next course of action is to redact as much as possible from the report before it is revealed to Congress. This is exactly why Trump nominated him for Attorney General in the first place... and to ensure that he would never be charged with any crimes, of course.

Lots of unfounded assumptions going on. Only thing we know for sure is there were corrupt individuals on the Mueller team and there could have been more.

 

[DancingOutlaw]

We don't know what is going on behind the scenes. Barr has released a statement separate from the summary clarifying that it was just a "summary of the principle conclusions" and trying to explain why certain redactions would be made. This shouldn't surprise anyone... of course, William Barr was always going to initially present a watered down summary of Mueller's findings, as low on specifics as possible and high on generalizations and legalese. The next course of action is to redact as much as possible from the report before it is revealed to Congress. This is exactly why Trump nominated him for Attorney General in the first place... and to ensure that he would never be charged with any crimes, of course.

Huh boy.

 

[TheDeeble]

What took them two weeks to speak up?

I mean, the entire US has been debating this since 2016. The media will jump on anything that keeps it going.

If I submit a project at work and my co-workers misinterpret it, I'm not going to wait 2 weeks to let someone know.

 

[volinbham]

Yes, but those are Barr's words; not Mueller's. This story in The New York Times is basically calling Barr's summary of the Mueller report a misrepresentation of it's findings. It definitely appears that Attorney General Barr wanted to sell the American people on his own partisan narrative before they had a chance to reach a conclusion for themselves as to what the Mueller team had found during their investigation.

It is not saying that - it is saying SOME on the Mueller team think the findings are not as good for Trump as people have inferred from the Barr memo.

It's a leap then to claim that Barr was trying to sell some narrative.

You jumped from unconfirmed fact to unconfirmed motives based on an assumption the unconfirmed facts are true. Even if the report is more damning than people believe based upon Barr's memo (and that's a subjective assessment) it doesn't establish that Barr intentionally sought to create his own partisan narrative (a motive).

 

[volinbham]

We don't know what is going on behind the scenes. Barr has released a statement separate from the summary clarifying that it was just a "summary of the principle conclusions" and trying to explain why certain redactions would be made. This shouldn't surprise anyone... of course, William Barr was always going to initially present a watered down summary of Mueller's findings, as low on specifics as possible and high on generalizations and legalese. The next course of action is to redact as much as possible from the report before it is revealed to Congress. This is exactly why Trump nominated him for Attorney General in the first place... and to ensure that he would never be charged with any crimes, of course.

LOL - please never argue you are an objective observer

 

[BowlBrother85]

It is not saying that - it is saying SOME on the Mueller team think the findings are not as good for Trump as people have inferred from the Barr memo.

It's a leap then to claim that Barr was trying to sell some narrative.

You jumped from unconfirmed fact to unconfirmed motives based on an assumption the unconfirmed facts are true. Even if the report is more damning than people believe based upon Barr's memo (and that's a subjective assessment) it doesn't establish that Barr intentionally sought to create his own partisan narrative (a motive).

No... it is saying that Barr failed to convey the gravity of Mueller's findings in his summary because he didn't include details which were unfavorable to Trump.

 

[C-south]

No... it is saying that Barr failed to convey the gravity of Mueller's findings in his summary because he didn't include details which were unfavorable to Trump.

What details? I thought mueller himself said there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. He also said he couldn’t fully exonerate Trump for obstruction which we all know to be bs too. The firing of Comey could be the only thing he meant but after Comey’s corruption and incompetence was brought to light we all know that won’t hold water as well. Anything else is moot.

 

[DC_Vol]

It’s a good thing Trump was completely exonerated already.

 

[volinbham]

No... it is saying that Barr failed to convey the gravity of Mueller's findings in his summary because he didn't include details which were unfavorable to Trump.

It does not say that anywhere in the article. Did you read it?

You are inventing conclusions from the article.

 

[BowlBrother85]

What details? I thought mueller himself said there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. He also said he couldn’t fully exonerate Trump for obstruction which we all know to be bs too. The firing of Comey could be the only thing he meant but after Comey’s corruption and incompetence was brought to light we all know that won’t hold water as well. Anything else is moot.

I don't have any way to know and we won't until the Mueller report is released. I will say this, I do not trust the Barr summary to be non-partisan and unvarnished. He wrote as benign a memo as he could possibly get away with.

 

[volinbham]

I don't have any way to know and we won't until the Mueller report is released. I will say this, I do not trust the Barr summary to be non-partisan and unvarnished. He wrote as benign a memo as he could possible get away with.

Do you trust Schiff or Nadler? How about Comey and Brennan? If yes, why?