Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
Blaming Obama for letting Russian interference happen while at the same time being the president who happily claimed there was no Russian interference and it would be so bad if we got along with the Russians until Congress beat them over the head with sanctions making them change the position.
Although he pretends like Russian interference isn't a big deal during recent nuclear talks with russia.
The narrative is weird to have and that this is 2020 ad. It's also a real flip on messaging consistent with how trump campaigns. Always be accusing because accusations make you look like you're winning at arguments because it's the active role.
On May 03 2019 23:51 Danglars wrote: Kimberly Strassel had a good wrap-up in the Wall Street Journal on Barr's accusers and what it means. It's a tale of frustration of goals from the Mueller investigation, and how exposed many powerful people are to the Barr & Horowitz investigations. If it was just inquiries into the start of the investigation, that wouldn't be so bad. Most of the likely top figures responsible have been fired or resigned under a cloud. It's also the criminal leaks, FISA warrant, dossier (as possible Russian disinformation). I also hadn't caught on that at least one journalist has started in on Mr. Horowitz.
The only thing uglier than an angry Washington is a fearful Washington. And fear is what’s driving this week’s blitzkrieg of Attorney General William Barr.
Mr. Barr tolerantly sat through hours of Democratic insults at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday. His reward for his patience was to be labeled, in the space of a news cycle, a lawbreaking, dishonest, obstructing hack. Speaker Nancy Pelosi publicly accused Mr. Barr of lying to Congress, which, she added, is “considered a crime.” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler said he will move to hold Mr. Barr in contempt unless the attorney general acquiesces to the unprecedented demand that he submit to cross-examination by committee staff attorneys. James Comey, former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, lamented that Donald Trump had “eaten” Mr. Barr’s “soul.” Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren demands the attorney general resign. California Rep. Eric Swalwell wants him impeached.
These attacks aren’t about special counsel Robert Mueller, his report or even the surreal debate over Mr. Barr’s first letter describing the report. The attorney general delivered the transparency Democrats demanded: He quickly released a lightly redacted report, which portrayed the president in a negative light. What do Democrats have to object to?
Some of this is frustration. Democrats foolishly invested two years of political capital in the idea that Mr. Mueller would prove President Trump had colluded with Russia, and Mr. Mueller left them empty-handed. Some of it is personal. Democrats resent that Mr. Barr won’t cower or apologize for doing his job. Some is bitterness that Mr. Barr is performing like a real attorney general, making the call against obstruction-of-justice charges rather than sitting back and letting Democrats have their fun with Mr. Mueller’s obstruction innuendo.
But most of it is likely fear. Mr. Barr made real news in that Senate hearing, and while the press didn’t notice, Democrats did. The attorney general said he’d already assigned people at the Justice Department to assist his investigation of the origins of the Trump-Russia probe. He said his review would be far-reaching—that he was obtaining details from congressional investigations, from the ongoing probe by the department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, and even from Mr. Mueller’s work. Mr. Barr said the investigation wouldn’t focus only on the fall 2016 justifications for secret surveillance warrants against Trump team members but would go back months earlier.
He also said he’d focus on the infamous “dossier” concocted by opposition-research firm Fusion GPS and British former spy Christopher Steele, on which the FBI relied so heavily in its probe. Mr. Barr acknowledged his concern that the dossier itself could be Russian disinformation, a possibility he described as not “entirely speculative.” He also revealed that the department has “multiple criminal leak investigations under way” into the disclosure of classified details about the Trump-Russia investigation.
Do not underestimate how many powerful people in Washington have something to lose from Mr. Barr’s probe. Among them: Former and current leaders of the law-enforcement and intelligence communities. The Democratic Party pooh-bahs who paid a foreign national (Mr. Steele) to collect information from Russians and deliver it to the FBI. The government officials who misused their positions to target a presidential campaign. The leakers. The media. More than reputations are at risk. Revelations could lead to lawsuits, formal disciplinary actions, lost jobs, even criminal prosecution.
The attacks on Mr. Barr are first and foremost an effort to force him out, to prevent this information from coming to light until Democrats can retake the White House in 2020. As a fallback, the coordinated campaign works as a pre-emptive smear, diminishing the credibility of his ultimate findings by priming the public to view him as a partisan.
That’s why Mr. Barr isn’t alone in getting slimed. Natasha Bertrand at Politico last month penned a hit piece on the respected Mr. Horowitz. It’s clear the inspector general is asking the right questions. The Politico article acknowledges he’s homing in on Mr. Steele’s “credibility” and the dossier’s “veracity”—then goes on to provide a defense of Mr. Steele and his dossier, while quoting unnamed sources who deride the “quality” of the Horowitz probe, and (hilariously) claim the long-tenured inspector general is not “well-versed” in core Justice Department functions.
“We have to stop using the criminal-justice process as a political weapon,” Mr. Barr said Wednesday. The line didn’t get much notice, but that worthy goal increasingly looks to be a reason Mr. Barr accepted this unpleasant job. Stopping this abuse requires understanding how it started. The liberal establishment, including journalists friendly with it, doesn’t want that to happen, and so has made it a mission to destroy Mr. Barr. The attorney general seems to know what he’s up against, and remains undeterred. That’s the sort of steely will necessary to right the ship at the Justice Department and the FBI.
One more word about specifically Mueller complaining about the press coverage. Why would a prosecutor, who has finished his report and whose staff is working with the DOJ to release it with minor redactions, be concerned about the things the press is getting wrong in a few short weeks? It's entirely reasonable for Barr to simply give a quick breakdown of the principal conclusions, instead of releasing parts in piecemeal fashion. If Mueller really wanted it to be quickly released after conclusion, he could've done more to indicate to Barr the (6e) redactions prior to submission. He simply couldn't stand a brief description of his failure to reach a conclusion on obstruction to deflateAndrew McCarthy:
.
You should really stop spreading this nonsense. For one, Mueller is not complaining about the press coverage. It's a complete fabrication of a talking point. It's not at all what Muellers letter says. Mueller complained about Barr's work being crap and people getting it wrong because his work was crap and he wasn't releasing material already provided.
Mueller provided summaries that were cleared of redacted material. Then in the letter he asked Barr again! to release those summaries. Of course he was worried about people getting it wrong since Barr's summary was wrong, Barr failed to do his job as AG. That said Barr never intended to do his job properly, he just wanted damage limitation so he ignored the summaries already provided and never even mentioned them.
And then let me point you to a very in depth article about the problem with Barr.
Barr obviously expressed shock that Mueller would write such a letter (later speculated that it's snippiness might have been a work product of some of his staff)
I said, ‘Bob, what’s with the letter?’ Why don’t you just pick up the phone and call me if there’s an issue?’"
It's clear from the letter itself that Mueller's problem was "public confusion" before the entire report would be released. He wanted more released earlier. He didn't like the press coverage. Sorry.
You should really stop spreading this nonsense. Quote from the letter, and quote from the article in the future to back up your points. I don't really care much for simple contradiction that involves poor summaries of points and base assertions.
As I read them, Barr’s public statements on the report reflect at least seven different layers of substantive misrepresentation, layers which build on one another into a dramatic rewriting of the president’s conduct—and of Mueller’s findings about the president’s conduct. It is worth unpacking and disentangling these misrepresentations, because each is mischievous on its own, but together they operate as a disinformation campaign being run by the senior leadership of the Justice Department.
Both at the press conference and in yesterday’s hearing, the attorney general insisted that Mueller had told him that it was not merely the Justice Department’s legal opinion stating that the president could not be indicted that prevented him from concluding that Trump had obstructed justice. “He made it clear that he had not made the determination that there was a crime” but for the opinion, Barr said at the press conference. The implication is that the issue was not just one of legal authority, but that the evidence wasn’t there either.
I don’t know what Mueller told Barr privately, but the report does not support this claim. Mueller lists four “considerations that guided our obstruction-of-justice investigation.” The first of them states that the Justice Department “has issued an opinion finding that ‘the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions’ in violation of ‘the constitutional separation of powers.’” Because Mueller is an officer of the Justice Department, “this Office accepted [the department’s] legal conclusion for purposes of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction.”
The use of the word jurisdiction here is not casual. It means that Mueller believes he lacks the authority to indict the president. Because of that, he goes on to explain, he did not evaluate the evidence to render a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The report offers no support for the notion that Mueller stayed his hand on obstruction out of concern for the strength of the evidence.
The effects of these layers of mischaracterization are to rewrite the Mueller report and to recast the presidential conduct described in it. The direction of the recasting just happens to dovetail with the president’s talking points, and just happens to transmute him from a scofflaw with power into a victim of the “deep state.”
Meh the letter is very short and not hard to interpret, I felt no need to quote it. Yes he is worried about public confusion. Of course he is worried about public confusion. The confusion stems, not from media coverage, which is not mentioned anywhere, but from the problem that Barr's letter not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions. This contrary to the the introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report that accurately summarize this Office’s work and conclusions. The subject is not media coverage. The subject is confusion caused by the failure to capture his work accurately.
This confusion leads to misunderstandings that have arisen and congressional and public questions about the nature and outcome of our investigation. Public confusion, misunderstandings and congressional questions are not good things. Barr's letter caused these things.
He wanted more released than the conclusions on findings. That's why he pushed for more context and substance before the entire report was released a couple weeks later. That's entirely a public relations and media worry on the findings, which isn't the prosecutor's job, on a report that was released very quickly afterwards. It's entirely defensible that a quick brief on findings and a quick release of the entire report is superior to piecemeal snippets. Mueller could've advanced the timetable by identifying potential 6e himself, instead of quizzically making Barr do it with his office.
The same lies are repeated here that have been addressed by myself in former posts. The intentional blurring between two different questions now used to allege lying is here. The poor reading of Mueller failing to reach a conclusion on obstruction of justice was answered more recently by xDaunt here. Any basis to reject these arguments against is welcome, and any lack of arguments but simple disbelief and rejection and restatement of claims already responded to is just lack of effort.
Well, for these second points. I think the Mueller letter clearly rejects the conclusions in the Barr letter because it paints Trumps campaign having nothing to do with Russia during the election when they had a lot of ' doing', just no outright clearly labeled criminal conspiracy.
And what is also part of the context nature and substances missed by Barr is the whole OLC-can't indict a president debacle. So Barr misrepresenting that by saying that OLC guidelines was not part of the obstruction decision when it was 100% of the reason for not bringing charging decisions is just wrong.
And xDaunts point is just an opinion, it's not an argument. There is no basis for rewriting Mueller following the rules provided to him into Mueller plotting to create a cloud for political damage other than personal conviction. The rules are real. The plot not so much.
Mueller himself told Barr nothing in the summary was inaccurate or misleading. Your thoughts are contradicted by Mueller himself.
There is no source for this from Mueller, it's some spokesperson for Barr saying this. I cannot understand Mueller saying nothing was misleading, when he also says it misses context subject and nature of his work and conclusions. How can he say both these things?
To be fair this entire silence from Mueller is quite frustrating, his hearing cannot come soon enough.
No, Fueled, it's Barr relating specific things Mueller told him that it was entirely necessary to ask Mueller given the confusion in his report regarding OLC, and the confusion in the Mueller's letter regarding his opinion of the summary of findings. So kindly admit that Barr's testimony contradicts two major points you tried to make, or tell me Barr is lying about specific answers Mueller provided him when asked. I'm not about to play "here we go round the mulberry bush" with you if you steadfastly refuse to incorporate contradictory facts into your suppositions. No spokesman, just specific responses from Mueller relayed by Barr.
Mueller himself said the OLC guidelines were not the reason he didn't find obstruction
Special Counsel Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying, but-for the OLC opinion, he would've found obstruction
You've read that section of the report, so you should know why Barr would specifically ask Mueller if the OLC was the reason he didn't form a conclusion on obstruction. It needed that Mueller clarification.
This is not part of the report. It's a quote from Barr from the may 1st hearing I did not know about.
Unfortunately my first feeling about this comment is Barr misstating things again. However if it's true than Mueller's is indeed a chicken for not making a decision. But to me and loads of other more qualified people that section of the report very much reads like 'charges would be brought but we couldn't look at bringing them because rules' . Again we really need Mueller to testify.
Again, will you outright allege Barr is lying about things he testified that Mueller told him when specifically asked on the question? I can only help you so much in bridging the gap between what you've falsely said is the case, and what sworn testimony (of which notes exist regarding the conversation) proves is not the case. I've heard a lot of unsubstantiated fears going around with no admission, so I'd like to have you on the record now that you think Barr is lying about conversations with written record and specifically proving you wrong on Mueller's actions, or alternatively saying your former thoughts on Mueller were misinformed.
The idea that Mueller might actually go to Capitol Hill and testify that Barr completely misrepresented the conversations that they had is outright laughable. In fact, I bet that the conversations were officially recorded. Whatever Barr has testified to on these points can be taken to the bank as true.
On May 04 2019 02:20 Plansix wrote: [quote] Nixon and Clinton were both investigated when the opposing party held both chambers of Congress. Both would have been impeached if they obstructed the investigation by failing to comply with a subpoena. But lets be clear, impeachment is the only response to that. Even Congress can’t “force” the White House to comply without assistance from agencies under the control of the executive branch(FBI and Justice).
The court is not magic. Its orders to no make people do things. The consequences of not complying makes people do things. And those consequences are caused by the executive branch. As Andrew Jackson pointed out all those years ago, the Court cannot enforce its own order.
You can recite the actual impeachment process all you want, but please don't confuse an Article 2 battle for subpoenas for a Congressional process. He had every right and ability to fight for a subpoena which hasn't involved Congressional interaction in the past and has been won repeatedly in the past. It's pure hogwash bringing up Congressional control in the context of subpoenas when Congressional control wasn't even involved with the successful pursuit of subpoenas previously. You fight and win those in court, not Congress. Give me some form of Congressional involvement that I don't know about, or I'm concluding you think Special Counsels somehow lose their nerve when they think the president won't end up being impeached.
I didn't. I just have a better understand of the limitations of special counsels when it comes to forcing the executive to comply with court orders.
You gave a non sequitur about Congress, and when I pointed this fact out, made no defense. I think if you had an understanding of the limitations, you could've shared those limitations with all of us.
Like, you know, point out how Congress aided in compliance with subpoenas in the SUCCESSFUL subpoenas of Nixon and Clinton.
Also, are you really so droll to bring up forcing the executive to comply with court orders when they didn't even try to obtain a court order? I literally started off explaining why I think they did not seek one, and provided the material facts that past courts have succeeded and without Congressional involvement. I really can't imagine why you would blame Congress without reason, and then blame court orders when none were sought.
I didn’t blame congress. I pointed out that the special counsels in those cases had more support from congress, who would have taken action if the White House did not comply with the subpoena in some way. I expressed serious doubt the Special counsel has any confidence in the 2017-2018 congress to do anything if the White House ignored an order to comply with a subpoena.
Mueller was worried about potential ignoring of a court order, which hasn't happened the last two times it's been done, and wasn't even going to pursue one based on it, since he was so worried about lack of support. Theoretical possibilities of unprecedented actions necessitating Congressional involvement is your real angle here. Nixon went so far as to fire the special prosecutor and attorney general, but even he lost in the courts when defying subpoena (Trump did not fire Mueller). This is some really wearying logic you're using that it would somehow necessitate Congress.
It is almost like this situation is different than the last to times there was a special counsel. And it is not unprecedented for the White House to ignore orders from the Court.
You're way off here. The Supreme Court unanimously ordered Nixon to comply with the subpoena. It was resolved in the courts and you provide nothing but wild fears that Trump's got secret extra-judicial powers this time around. It's old hat that if you want to subpoena the President, you fight it in the courts ... and if you fail to find grounds to subpoena the president (it's the case here), you don't even start the fight. Mueller's no fool, and it would take a fool to even refuse the legal fight if you think you can win in the courts in the first place. It's patently absurd and I wonder why anybody hoping to be taken seriously is even suggesting it.
Are you trying to claim that Andrew Jackson does not exist? Or that there isn't a history of ignoring subpoenas because it suited the administration?
Sorry? Did you have anything to say about my point on Nixon trying to fight the subpoena and getting destroyed in the courts, or are you about to explain to me why Andrew Jackson is more special than Nixon and Clinton examples? I can't do the work filling in the details on this if you just mention a name and post a link. I'll also state explicitly that I'm talking about the successful work of independent counsel seeking subpoenas of the president/evidence and winning in courts.
Plansix's point is nothing more than baseless speculation regarding whether Trump would comply with a subpoena if ordered to by a Court. It's really neither here nor there. In fact, his whole line of argument regarding this subpoena issue shows that he doesn't fully understand the relative roles of government as it pertains to subpoena power or even what body would have adjudicated a subpoena issued by Mueller.
On May 03 2019 23:51 Danglars wrote: Kimberly Strassel had a good wrap-up in the Wall Street Journal on Barr's accusers and what it means. It's a tale of frustration of goals from the Mueller investigation, and how exposed many powerful people are to the Barr & Horowitz investigations. If it was just inquiries into the start of the investigation, that wouldn't be so bad. Most of the likely top figures responsible have been fired or resigned under a cloud. It's also the criminal leaks, FISA warrant, dossier (as possible Russian disinformation). I also hadn't caught on that at least one journalist has started in on Mr. Horowitz.
The only thing uglier than an angry Washington is a fearful Washington. And fear is what’s driving this week’s blitzkrieg of Attorney General William Barr.
Mr. Barr tolerantly sat through hours of Democratic insults at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday. His reward for his patience was to be labeled, in the space of a news cycle, a lawbreaking, dishonest, obstructing hack. Speaker Nancy Pelosi publicly accused Mr. Barr of lying to Congress, which, she added, is “considered a crime.” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler said he will move to hold Mr. Barr in contempt unless the attorney general acquiesces to the unprecedented demand that he submit to cross-examination by committee staff attorneys. James Comey, former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, lamented that Donald Trump had “eaten” Mr. Barr’s “soul.” Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren demands the attorney general resign. California Rep. Eric Swalwell wants him impeached.
These attacks aren’t about special counsel Robert Mueller, his report or even the surreal debate over Mr. Barr’s first letter describing the report. The attorney general delivered the transparency Democrats demanded: He quickly released a lightly redacted report, which portrayed the president in a negative light. What do Democrats have to object to?
Some of this is frustration. Democrats foolishly invested two years of political capital in the idea that Mr. Mueller would prove President Trump had colluded with Russia, and Mr. Mueller left them empty-handed. Some of it is personal. Democrats resent that Mr. Barr won’t cower or apologize for doing his job. Some is bitterness that Mr. Barr is performing like a real attorney general, making the call against obstruction-of-justice charges rather than sitting back and letting Democrats have their fun with Mr. Mueller’s obstruction innuendo.
But most of it is likely fear. Mr. Barr made real news in that Senate hearing, and while the press didn’t notice, Democrats did. The attorney general said he’d already assigned people at the Justice Department to assist his investigation of the origins of the Trump-Russia probe. He said his review would be far-reaching—that he was obtaining details from congressional investigations, from the ongoing probe by the department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, and even from Mr. Mueller’s work. Mr. Barr said the investigation wouldn’t focus only on the fall 2016 justifications for secret surveillance warrants against Trump team members but would go back months earlier.
He also said he’d focus on the infamous “dossier” concocted by opposition-research firm Fusion GPS and British former spy Christopher Steele, on which the FBI relied so heavily in its probe. Mr. Barr acknowledged his concern that the dossier itself could be Russian disinformation, a possibility he described as not “entirely speculative.” He also revealed that the department has “multiple criminal leak investigations under way” into the disclosure of classified details about the Trump-Russia investigation.
Do not underestimate how many powerful people in Washington have something to lose from Mr. Barr’s probe. Among them: Former and current leaders of the law-enforcement and intelligence communities. The Democratic Party pooh-bahs who paid a foreign national (Mr. Steele) to collect information from Russians and deliver it to the FBI. The government officials who misused their positions to target a presidential campaign. The leakers. The media. More than reputations are at risk. Revelations could lead to lawsuits, formal disciplinary actions, lost jobs, even criminal prosecution.
The attacks on Mr. Barr are first and foremost an effort to force him out, to prevent this information from coming to light until Democrats can retake the White House in 2020. As a fallback, the coordinated campaign works as a pre-emptive smear, diminishing the credibility of his ultimate findings by priming the public to view him as a partisan.
That’s why Mr. Barr isn’t alone in getting slimed. Natasha Bertrand at Politico last month penned a hit piece on the respected Mr. Horowitz. It’s clear the inspector general is asking the right questions. The Politico article acknowledges he’s homing in on Mr. Steele’s “credibility” and the dossier’s “veracity”—then goes on to provide a defense of Mr. Steele and his dossier, while quoting unnamed sources who deride the “quality” of the Horowitz probe, and (hilariously) claim the long-tenured inspector general is not “well-versed” in core Justice Department functions.
“We have to stop using the criminal-justice process as a political weapon,” Mr. Barr said Wednesday. The line didn’t get much notice, but that worthy goal increasingly looks to be a reason Mr. Barr accepted this unpleasant job. Stopping this abuse requires understanding how it started. The liberal establishment, including journalists friendly with it, doesn’t want that to happen, and so has made it a mission to destroy Mr. Barr. The attorney general seems to know what he’s up against, and remains undeterred. That’s the sort of steely will necessary to right the ship at the Justice Department and the FBI.
One more word about specifically Mueller complaining about the press coverage. Why would a prosecutor, who has finished his report and whose staff is working with the DOJ to release it with minor redactions, be concerned about the things the press is getting wrong in a few short weeks? It's entirely reasonable for Barr to simply give a quick breakdown of the principal conclusions, instead of releasing parts in piecemeal fashion. If Mueller really wanted it to be quickly released after conclusion, he could've done more to indicate to Barr the (6e) redactions prior to submission. He simply couldn't stand a brief description of his failure to reach a conclusion on obstruction to deflateAndrew McCarthy:
.
You should really stop spreading this nonsense. For one, Mueller is not complaining about the press coverage. It's a complete fabrication of a talking point. It's not at all what Muellers letter says. Mueller complained about Barr's work being crap and people getting it wrong because his work was crap and he wasn't releasing material already provided.
Mueller provided summaries that were cleared of redacted material. Then in the letter he asked Barr again! to release those summaries. Of course he was worried about people getting it wrong since Barr's summary was wrong, Barr failed to do his job as AG. That said Barr never intended to do his job properly, he just wanted damage limitation so he ignored the summaries already provided and never even mentioned them.
And then let me point you to a very in depth article about the problem with Barr.
Barr obviously expressed shock that Mueller would write such a letter (later speculated that it's snippiness might have been a work product of some of his staff)
I said, ‘Bob, what’s with the letter?’ Why don’t you just pick up the phone and call me if there’s an issue?’"
It's clear from the letter itself that Mueller's problem was "public confusion" before the entire report would be released. He wanted more released earlier. He didn't like the press coverage. Sorry.
You should really stop spreading this nonsense. Quote from the letter, and quote from the article in the future to back up your points. I don't really care much for simple contradiction that involves poor summaries of points and base assertions.
As I read them, Barr’s public statements on the report reflect at least seven different layers of substantive misrepresentation, layers which build on one another into a dramatic rewriting of the president’s conduct—and of Mueller’s findings about the president’s conduct. It is worth unpacking and disentangling these misrepresentations, because each is mischievous on its own, but together they operate as a disinformation campaign being run by the senior leadership of the Justice Department.
Both at the press conference and in yesterday’s hearing, the attorney general insisted that Mueller had told him that it was not merely the Justice Department’s legal opinion stating that the president could not be indicted that prevented him from concluding that Trump had obstructed justice. “He made it clear that he had not made the determination that there was a crime” but for the opinion, Barr said at the press conference. The implication is that the issue was not just one of legal authority, but that the evidence wasn’t there either.
I don’t know what Mueller told Barr privately, but the report does not support this claim. Mueller lists four “considerations that guided our obstruction-of-justice investigation.” The first of them states that the Justice Department “has issued an opinion finding that ‘the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions’ in violation of ‘the constitutional separation of powers.’” Because Mueller is an officer of the Justice Department, “this Office accepted [the department’s] legal conclusion for purposes of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction.”
The use of the word jurisdiction here is not casual. It means that Mueller believes he lacks the authority to indict the president. Because of that, he goes on to explain, he did not evaluate the evidence to render a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The report offers no support for the notion that Mueller stayed his hand on obstruction out of concern for the strength of the evidence.
The effects of these layers of mischaracterization are to rewrite the Mueller report and to recast the presidential conduct described in it. The direction of the recasting just happens to dovetail with the president’s talking points, and just happens to transmute him from a scofflaw with power into a victim of the “deep state.”
Meh the letter is very short and not hard to interpret, I felt no need to quote it. Yes he is worried about public confusion. Of course he is worried about public confusion. The confusion stems, not from media coverage, which is not mentioned anywhere, but from the problem that Barr's letter not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions. This contrary to the the introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report that accurately summarize this Office’s work and conclusions. The subject is not media coverage. The subject is confusion caused by the failure to capture his work accurately.
This confusion leads to misunderstandings that have arisen and congressional and public questions about the nature and outcome of our investigation. Public confusion, misunderstandings and congressional questions are not good things. Barr's letter caused these things.
He wanted more released than the conclusions on findings. That's why he pushed for more context and substance before the entire report was released a couple weeks later. That's entirely a public relations and media worry on the findings, which isn't the prosecutor's job, on a report that was released very quickly afterwards. It's entirely defensible that a quick brief on findings and a quick release of the entire report is superior to piecemeal snippets. Mueller could've advanced the timetable by identifying potential 6e himself, instead of quizzically making Barr do it with his office.
The same lies are repeated here that have been addressed by myself in former posts. The intentional blurring between two different questions now used to allege lying is here. The poor reading of Mueller failing to reach a conclusion on obstruction of justice was answered more recently by xDaunt here. Any basis to reject these arguments against is welcome, and any lack of arguments but simple disbelief and rejection and restatement of claims already responded to is just lack of effort.
Well, for these second points. I think the Mueller letter clearly rejects the conclusions in the Barr letter because it paints Trumps campaign having nothing to do with Russia during the election when they had a lot of ' doing', just no outright clearly labeled criminal conspiracy.
And what is also part of the context nature and substances missed by Barr is the whole OLC-can't indict a president debacle. So Barr misrepresenting that by saying that OLC guidelines was not part of the obstruction decision when it was 100% of the reason for not bringing charging decisions is just wrong.
And xDaunts point is just an opinion, it's not an argument. There is no basis for rewriting Mueller following the rules provided to him into Mueller plotting to create a cloud for political damage other than personal conviction. The rules are real. The plot not so much.
Mueller himself told Barr nothing in the summary was inaccurate or misleading. Your thoughts are contradicted by Mueller himself.
There is no source for this from Mueller, it's some spokesperson for Barr saying this. I cannot understand Mueller saying nothing was misleading, when he also says it misses context subject and nature of his work and conclusions. How can he say both these things?
To be fair this entire silence from Mueller is quite frustrating, his hearing cannot come soon enough.
No, Fueled, it's Barr relating specific things Mueller told him that it was entirely necessary to ask Mueller given the confusion in his report regarding OLC, and the confusion in the Mueller's letter regarding his opinion of the summary of findings. So kindly admit that Barr's testimony contradicts two major points you tried to make, or tell me Barr is lying about specific answers Mueller provided him when asked. I'm not about to play "here we go round the mulberry bush" with you if you steadfastly refuse to incorporate contradictory facts into your suppositions. No spokesman, just specific responses from Mueller relayed by Barr.
Mueller himself said the OLC guidelines were not the reason he didn't find obstruction
Special Counsel Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying, but-for the OLC opinion, he would've found obstruction
You've read that section of the report, so you should know why Barr would specifically ask Mueller if the OLC was the reason he didn't form a conclusion on obstruction. It needed that Mueller clarification.
This is not part of the report. It's a quote from Barr from the may 1st hearing I did not know about.
Unfortunately my first feeling about this comment is Barr misstating things again. However if it's true than Mueller's is indeed a chicken for not making a decision. But to me and loads of other more qualified people that section of the report very much reads like 'charges would be brought but we couldn't look at bringing them because rules' . Again we really need Mueller to testify.
Again, will you outright allege Barr is lying about things he testified that Mueller told him when specifically asked on the question? I can only help you so much in bridging the gap between what you've falsely said is the case, and what sworn testimony (of which notes exist regarding the conversation) proves is not the case. I've heard a lot of unsubstantiated fears going around with no admission, so I'd like to have you on the record now that you think Barr is lying about conversations with written record and specifically proving you wrong on Mueller's actions, or alternatively saying your former thoughts on Mueller were misinformed.
The first quote was first said as a statement to WaPo from a justice department official in the original Mueller letter article. I don't know if it was in his testimony. It's not in his written opening statement.
The second one is also not in his written opening statement. Are you really blaming me for not knowing every word he said two days ago?
There is plenty of reason to doubt Barr's interpretation of other peoples words. There is a lot of room for 'I understood him differently' before it's a lie under oath.
On May 04 2019 05:27 xDaunt wrote: The idea that Mueller might actually go to Capitol Hill and testify that Barr completely misrepresented the conversations that they had is outright laughable. In fact, I bet that the conversations were officially recorded. Whatever Barr has testified to on these points can be taken to the bank as true.
I don't think a lot of these arguments are worth pursuing if sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee functions similar to user opinions and are brushed off easily. It's sworn testimony under threat of perjury. It's specific to important questions raised by elected Democratic leaders. If it can't be cited as something concrete not to be lightly dismissed, then I'm feeding obvious trolls and shame on me for not recognizing their motives.
On May 03 2019 23:51 Danglars wrote: Kimberly Strassel had a good wrap-up in the Wall Street Journal on Barr's accusers and what it means. It's a tale of frustration of goals from the Mueller investigation, and how exposed many powerful people are to the Barr & Horowitz investigations. If it was just inquiries into the start of the investigation, that wouldn't be so bad. Most of the likely top figures responsible have been fired or resigned under a cloud. It's also the criminal leaks, FISA warrant, dossier (as possible Russian disinformation). I also hadn't caught on that at least one journalist has started in on Mr. Horowitz.
The only thing uglier than an angry Washington is a fearful Washington. And fear is what’s driving this week’s blitzkrieg of Attorney General William Barr.
Mr. Barr tolerantly sat through hours of Democratic insults at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday. His reward for his patience was to be labeled, in the space of a news cycle, a lawbreaking, dishonest, obstructing hack. Speaker Nancy Pelosi publicly accused Mr. Barr of lying to Congress, which, she added, is “considered a crime.” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler said he will move to hold Mr. Barr in contempt unless the attorney general acquiesces to the unprecedented demand that he submit to cross-examination by committee staff attorneys. James Comey, former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, lamented that Donald Trump had “eaten” Mr. Barr’s “soul.” Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren demands the attorney general resign. California Rep. Eric Swalwell wants him impeached.
These attacks aren’t about special counsel Robert Mueller, his report or even the surreal debate over Mr. Barr’s first letter describing the report. The attorney general delivered the transparency Democrats demanded: He quickly released a lightly redacted report, which portrayed the president in a negative light. What do Democrats have to object to?
Some of this is frustration. Democrats foolishly invested two years of political capital in the idea that Mr. Mueller would prove President Trump had colluded with Russia, and Mr. Mueller left them empty-handed. Some of it is personal. Democrats resent that Mr. Barr won’t cower or apologize for doing his job. Some is bitterness that Mr. Barr is performing like a real attorney general, making the call against obstruction-of-justice charges rather than sitting back and letting Democrats have their fun with Mr. Mueller’s obstruction innuendo.
But most of it is likely fear. Mr. Barr made real news in that Senate hearing, and while the press didn’t notice, Democrats did. The attorney general said he’d already assigned people at the Justice Department to assist his investigation of the origins of the Trump-Russia probe. He said his review would be far-reaching—that he was obtaining details from congressional investigations, from the ongoing probe by the department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, and even from Mr. Mueller’s work. Mr. Barr said the investigation wouldn’t focus only on the fall 2016 justifications for secret surveillance warrants against Trump team members but would go back months earlier.
He also said he’d focus on the infamous “dossier” concocted by opposition-research firm Fusion GPS and British former spy Christopher Steele, on which the FBI relied so heavily in its probe. Mr. Barr acknowledged his concern that the dossier itself could be Russian disinformation, a possibility he described as not “entirely speculative.” He also revealed that the department has “multiple criminal leak investigations under way” into the disclosure of classified details about the Trump-Russia investigation.
Do not underestimate how many powerful people in Washington have something to lose from Mr. Barr’s probe. Among them: Former and current leaders of the law-enforcement and intelligence communities. The Democratic Party pooh-bahs who paid a foreign national (Mr. Steele) to collect information from Russians and deliver it to the FBI. The government officials who misused their positions to target a presidential campaign. The leakers. The media. More than reputations are at risk. Revelations could lead to lawsuits, formal disciplinary actions, lost jobs, even criminal prosecution.
The attacks on Mr. Barr are first and foremost an effort to force him out, to prevent this information from coming to light until Democrats can retake the White House in 2020. As a fallback, the coordinated campaign works as a pre-emptive smear, diminishing the credibility of his ultimate findings by priming the public to view him as a partisan.
That’s why Mr. Barr isn’t alone in getting slimed. Natasha Bertrand at Politico last month penned a hit piece on the respected Mr. Horowitz. It’s clear the inspector general is asking the right questions. The Politico article acknowledges he’s homing in on Mr. Steele’s “credibility” and the dossier’s “veracity”—then goes on to provide a defense of Mr. Steele and his dossier, while quoting unnamed sources who deride the “quality” of the Horowitz probe, and (hilariously) claim the long-tenured inspector general is not “well-versed” in core Justice Department functions.
“We have to stop using the criminal-justice process as a political weapon,” Mr. Barr said Wednesday. The line didn’t get much notice, but that worthy goal increasingly looks to be a reason Mr. Barr accepted this unpleasant job. Stopping this abuse requires understanding how it started. The liberal establishment, including journalists friendly with it, doesn’t want that to happen, and so has made it a mission to destroy Mr. Barr. The attorney general seems to know what he’s up against, and remains undeterred. That’s the sort of steely will necessary to right the ship at the Justice Department and the FBI.
One more word about specifically Mueller complaining about the press coverage. Why would a prosecutor, who has finished his report and whose staff is working with the DOJ to release it with minor redactions, be concerned about the things the press is getting wrong in a few short weeks? It's entirely reasonable for Barr to simply give a quick breakdown of the principal conclusions, instead of releasing parts in piecemeal fashion. If Mueller really wanted it to be quickly released after conclusion, he could've done more to indicate to Barr the (6e) redactions prior to submission. He simply couldn't stand a brief description of his failure to reach a conclusion on obstruction to deflateAndrew McCarthy:
.
You should really stop spreading this nonsense. For one, Mueller is not complaining about the press coverage. It's a complete fabrication of a talking point. It's not at all what Muellers letter says. Mueller complained about Barr's work being crap and people getting it wrong because his work was crap and he wasn't releasing material already provided.
Mueller provided summaries that were cleared of redacted material. Then in the letter he asked Barr again! to release those summaries. Of course he was worried about people getting it wrong since Barr's summary was wrong, Barr failed to do his job as AG. That said Barr never intended to do his job properly, he just wanted damage limitation so he ignored the summaries already provided and never even mentioned them.
And then let me point you to a very in depth article about the problem with Barr.
Barr obviously expressed shock that Mueller would write such a letter (later speculated that it's snippiness might have been a work product of some of his staff)
I said, ‘Bob, what’s with the letter?’ Why don’t you just pick up the phone and call me if there’s an issue?’"
It's clear from the letter itself that Mueller's problem was "public confusion" before the entire report would be released. He wanted more released earlier. He didn't like the press coverage. Sorry.
You should really stop spreading this nonsense. Quote from the letter, and quote from the article in the future to back up your points. I don't really care much for simple contradiction that involves poor summaries of points and base assertions.
As I read them, Barr’s public statements on the report reflect at least seven different layers of substantive misrepresentation, layers which build on one another into a dramatic rewriting of the president’s conduct—and of Mueller’s findings about the president’s conduct. It is worth unpacking and disentangling these misrepresentations, because each is mischievous on its own, but together they operate as a disinformation campaign being run by the senior leadership of the Justice Department.
Both at the press conference and in yesterday’s hearing, the attorney general insisted that Mueller had told him that it was not merely the Justice Department’s legal opinion stating that the president could not be indicted that prevented him from concluding that Trump had obstructed justice. “He made it clear that he had not made the determination that there was a crime” but for the opinion, Barr said at the press conference. The implication is that the issue was not just one of legal authority, but that the evidence wasn’t there either.
I don’t know what Mueller told Barr privately, but the report does not support this claim. Mueller lists four “considerations that guided our obstruction-of-justice investigation.” The first of them states that the Justice Department “has issued an opinion finding that ‘the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions’ in violation of ‘the constitutional separation of powers.’” Because Mueller is an officer of the Justice Department, “this Office accepted [the department’s] legal conclusion for purposes of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction.”
The use of the word jurisdiction here is not casual. It means that Mueller believes he lacks the authority to indict the president. Because of that, he goes on to explain, he did not evaluate the evidence to render a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The report offers no support for the notion that Mueller stayed his hand on obstruction out of concern for the strength of the evidence.
The effects of these layers of mischaracterization are to rewrite the Mueller report and to recast the presidential conduct described in it. The direction of the recasting just happens to dovetail with the president’s talking points, and just happens to transmute him from a scofflaw with power into a victim of the “deep state.”
Meh the letter is very short and not hard to interpret, I felt no need to quote it. Yes he is worried about public confusion. Of course he is worried about public confusion. The confusion stems, not from media coverage, which is not mentioned anywhere, but from the problem that Barr's letter not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions. This contrary to the the introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report that accurately summarize this Office’s work and conclusions. The subject is not media coverage. The subject is confusion caused by the failure to capture his work accurately.
This confusion leads to misunderstandings that have arisen and congressional and public questions about the nature and outcome of our investigation. Public confusion, misunderstandings and congressional questions are not good things. Barr's letter caused these things.
He wanted more released than the conclusions on findings. That's why he pushed for more context and substance before the entire report was released a couple weeks later. That's entirely a public relations and media worry on the findings, which isn't the prosecutor's job, on a report that was released very quickly afterwards. It's entirely defensible that a quick brief on findings and a quick release of the entire report is superior to piecemeal snippets. Mueller could've advanced the timetable by identifying potential 6e himself, instead of quizzically making Barr do it with his office.
The same lies are repeated here that have been addressed by myself in former posts. The intentional blurring between two different questions now used to allege lying is here. The poor reading of Mueller failing to reach a conclusion on obstruction of justice was answered more recently by xDaunt here. Any basis to reject these arguments against is welcome, and any lack of arguments but simple disbelief and rejection and restatement of claims already responded to is just lack of effort.
Well, for these second points. I think the Mueller letter clearly rejects the conclusions in the Barr letter because it paints Trumps campaign having nothing to do with Russia during the election when they had a lot of ' doing', just no outright clearly labeled criminal conspiracy.
And what is also part of the context nature and substances missed by Barr is the whole OLC-can't indict a president debacle. So Barr misrepresenting that by saying that OLC guidelines was not part of the obstruction decision when it was 100% of the reason for not bringing charging decisions is just wrong.
And xDaunts point is just an opinion, it's not an argument. There is no basis for rewriting Mueller following the rules provided to him into Mueller plotting to create a cloud for political damage other than personal conviction. The rules are real. The plot not so much.
Mueller himself told Barr nothing in the summary was inaccurate or misleading. Your thoughts are contradicted by Mueller himself.
There is no source for this from Mueller, it's some spokesperson for Barr saying this. I cannot understand Mueller saying nothing was misleading, when he also says it misses context subject and nature of his work and conclusions. How can he say both these things?
To be fair this entire silence from Mueller is quite frustrating, his hearing cannot come soon enough.
No, Fueled, it's Barr relating specific things Mueller told him that it was entirely necessary to ask Mueller given the confusion in his report regarding OLC, and the confusion in the Mueller's letter regarding his opinion of the summary of findings. So kindly admit that Barr's testimony contradicts two major points you tried to make, or tell me Barr is lying about specific answers Mueller provided him when asked. I'm not about to play "here we go round the mulberry bush" with you if you steadfastly refuse to incorporate contradictory facts into your suppositions. No spokesman, just specific responses from Mueller relayed by Barr.
Mueller himself said the OLC guidelines were not the reason he didn't find obstruction
Special Counsel Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying, but-for the OLC opinion, he would've found obstruction
You've read that section of the report, so you should know why Barr would specifically ask Mueller if the OLC was the reason he didn't form a conclusion on obstruction. It needed that Mueller clarification.
This is not part of the report. It's a quote from Barr from the may 1st hearing I did not know about.
Unfortunately my first feeling about this comment is Barr misstating things again. However if it's true than Mueller's is indeed a chicken for not making a decision. But to me and loads of other more qualified people that section of the report very much reads like 'charges would be brought but we couldn't look at bringing them because rules' . Again we really need Mueller to testify.
Again, will you outright allege Barr is lying about things he testified that Mueller told him when specifically asked on the question? I can only help you so much in bridging the gap between what you've falsely said is the case, and what sworn testimony (of which notes exist regarding the conversation) proves is not the case. I've heard a lot of unsubstantiated fears going around with no admission, so I'd like to have you on the record now that you think Barr is lying about conversations with written record and specifically proving you wrong on Mueller's actions, or alternatively saying your former thoughts on Mueller were misinformed.
The first quote was first said as a statement to WaPo from a justice department official in the original Mueller letter article. I don't know if it was in his testimony. It's not in his written opening statement.
The second one is also not in his written opening statement. Are you really blaming me for not knowing every word he said two days ago?
There is plenty of reason to doubt Barr's interpretation of other peoples words. There is a lot of room for 'I understood him differently' before it's a lie under oath.
I'm not faulting you for not hearing it earlier. I'm providing you with things Barr said in sworn testimony before the Senate, specifically refuting points you thought were logical. I watched his Senate Testimony and Google will provide you with corroboration of everything I said was in there. I'll ask you for a final time if you think Barr perjured himself when specifically relaying things Mueller told him over the phone and in a group meeting, even when contemporaneous notes would prove him wrong if he did, or if Barr refuted your ideas in sworn testimony that is incredibly likely to be a faithful account. I have no business with any poster here that ignores sworn testimony when it contradicts their opinions on matters. I'm also willing to wait if you have some grounds to think I'm falsifying his Senate testimony just to try to prove you wrong.
On May 04 2019 05:52 Danglars wrote: I don't think a lot of these arguments are worth pursuing if sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee functions similar to user opinions and are brushed off easily. It's sworn testimony under threat of perjury. It's specific to important questions raised by elected Democratic leaders. If it can't be cited as something concrete not to be lightly dismissed, then I'm feeding obvious trolls and shame on me for not recognizing their motives.
What interests me about these conversations regarding the Mueller report is the persistent grasping at straws to keep the Russia conspiracy/obstruction narrative alive. The disconnect from reality for people still promoting this stuff is astounding. That people are struggling so much with with the idea that Mueller might be a political actor or that there is no dispute that he didn't conclude in his report that there was probable cause of a crime fascinates me, as does the inability of these same people to recognize how persistently wrong that they have been on all of this stuff for two+ years. The question that I have is what do these folks need to see to finally wake up? The Mueller report clearly isn't enough. Will the upcoming OIG report matter? Will declassification of the underlying investigation documents (FISA, etc) matter? Do we have to wait for criminal prosecutions and convictions of those involved? How much is really enough?
On May 04 2019 05:52 Danglars wrote: I don't think a lot of these arguments are worth pursuing if sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee functions similar to user opinions and are brushed off easily. It's sworn testimony under threat of perjury. It's specific to important questions raised by elected Democratic leaders. If it can't be cited as something concrete not to be lightly dismissed, then I'm feeding obvious trolls and shame on me for not recognizing their motives.
What interests me about these conversations regarding the Mueller report is the persistent grasping at straws to keep the Russia conspiracy/obstruction narrative alive. The disconnect from reality for people still promoting this stuff is astounding. That people are struggling so much with with the idea that Mueller might be a political actor or that there is no dispute that he didn't conclude in his report that there was probable cause of a crime fascinates me, as does the inability of these same people to recognize how persistently wrong that they have been on all of this stuff for two+ years. The question that I have is what do these folks need to see to finally wake up? The Mueller report clearly isn't enough. Will the upcoming OIG report matter? Will declassification of the underlying investigation documents (FISA, etc) matter? Do we have to wait for criminal prosecutions and convictions of those involved? How much is really enough?
I'll take a month ban if anyone ever gets convicted for the FISA nonsense. It's going to go the same road as the Seth Rich story or the busses full of immigrants doing election fraud story -> to the trashcan.
I still don't understand why you are not concerned about any of the conduct reported in the Mueller report. It really shouldn't matter if criminal charges happen or not. Or how you brush aside all the charges that were brought to the people Trump worked closely with. Those aren't fake. Manafort is in prison.
On May 04 2019 05:52 Danglars wrote: I don't think a lot of these arguments are worth pursuing if sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee functions similar to user opinions and are brushed off easily. It's sworn testimony under threat of perjury. It's specific to important questions raised by elected Democratic leaders. If it can't be cited as something concrete not to be lightly dismissed, then I'm feeding obvious trolls and shame on me for not recognizing their motives.
What interests me about these conversations regarding the Mueller report is the persistent grasping at straws to keep the Russia conspiracy/obstruction narrative alive. The disconnect from reality for people still promoting this stuff is astounding. That people are struggling so much with with the idea that Mueller might be a political actor or that there is no dispute that he didn't conclude in his report that there was probable cause of a crime fascinates me, as does the inability of these same people to recognize how persistently wrong that they have been on all of this stuff for two+ years. The question that I have is what do these folks need to see to finally wake up? The Mueller report clearly isn't enough. Will the upcoming OIG report matter? Will declassification of the underlying investigation documents (FISA, etc) matter? Do we have to wait for criminal prosecutions and convictions of those involved? How much is really enough?
I'll take a month ban if anyone ever gets convicted for the FISA nonsense. It's going to go the same road as the Seth Rich story or the busses full of immigrants doing election fraud story -> to the trashcan.
I still don't understand why you are not concerned about any of the conduct reported in the Mueller report. It really shouldn't matter if criminal charges happen or not. Or how you brush aside all the charges that were brought to the people Trump worked closely with. Those aren't fake. Manafort is in prison.
The conduct cited in the Mueller report isn't great and certainly not what I really want to see from my president. However, it can't be fairly viewed in a vacuum. Think about it from Trump's perspective. He has a rogue FBI director who is not only lying to him about the scope of the FBI's investigation into his campaign, but also refuses to publicly state that Trump isn't the subject of the investigation. He has hostile elements within his administration and the DOJ who are actively leaking false and incendiary shit to the press to insinuate that he's in bed with the Russians. Then, he has to deal with a dipshit AG who needlessly recuses himself, which ultimately results in the appointment of a special counsel who makes it quite obvious that the point of the investigation isn't looking into the veracity of the Russia/Trump collusion crap so much as it is creating the basis for an obstruction of justice charge. It can't be overstated how much Trump was under siege. Frankly, I'm amazed that he acted as well as he did.
On May 04 2019 05:52 Danglars wrote: I don't think a lot of these arguments are worth pursuing if sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee functions similar to user opinions and are brushed off easily. It's sworn testimony under threat of perjury. It's specific to important questions raised by elected Democratic leaders. If it can't be cited as something concrete not to be lightly dismissed, then I'm feeding obvious trolls and shame on me for not recognizing their motives.
What interests me about these conversations regarding the Mueller report is the persistent grasping at straws to keep the Russia conspiracy/obstruction narrative alive. The disconnect from reality for people still promoting this stuff is astounding. That people are struggling so much with with the idea that Mueller might be a political actor or that there is no dispute that he didn't conclude in his report that there was probable cause of a crime fascinates me, as does the inability of these same people to recognize how persistently wrong that they have been on all of this stuff for two+ years. The question that I have is what do these folks need to see to finally wake up? The Mueller report clearly isn't enough. Will the upcoming OIG report matter? Will declassification of the underlying investigation documents (FISA, etc) matter? Do we have to wait for criminal prosecutions and convictions of those involved? How much is really enough?
I'll take a month ban if anyone ever gets convicted for the FISA nonsense. It's going to go the same road as the Seth Rich story or the busses full of immigrants doing election fraud story -> to the trashcan.
I still don't understand why you are not concerned about any of the conduct reported in the Mueller report. It really shouldn't matter if criminal charges happen or not. Or how you brush aside all the charges that were brought to the people Trump worked closely with. Those aren't fake. Manafort is in prison.
The conduct cited in the Mueller report isn't great and certainly not what I really want to see from my president. However, it can't be fairly viewed in a vacuum. Think about it from Trump's perspective. He has a rogue FBI director who is not only lying to him about the scope of the FBI's investigation into his campaign, but also refuses to publicly state that Trump isn't the subject of the investigation. He has hostile elements within his administration and the DOJ who are actively leaking false and incendiary shit to the press to insinuate that he's in bed with the Russians. Then, he has to deal with a dipshit AG who needlessly recuses himself, which ultimately results in the appointment of a special counsel who makes it quite obvious that the point of the investigation isn't looking into the veracity of the Russia/Trump collusion crap so much as it is creating the basis for an obstruction of justice charge. It can't be overstated how much Trump was under siege. Frankly, I'm amazed that he acted as well as he did.
Isn't that calling him a liar but at the same time asking him to lie for trump.
How can you leak false information, that's just lying.
And the AG worked on the campaign, it's a fairly good attempt at avoiding a conflict of interest.
Also you dont know how much he worked on the Russia interference, the majority of the redacted stuff likely relates to that part of the investigation. Trumps attempts at obstruction in the other hand have little reason to redact as a good amount of the shit comes from mostly voluntary interviews, which is why you can have a large section of the report talking about obstruction by trump and yet no real interview from trump.
On May 04 2019 06:01 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: You didn't provide the context of sworn testimony when you first brought me those quotes lol.
You didn't ask for the source when I first brought up the direct quotes, so I didn't know that you hadn't read up on the testimony before the Judiciary Committee. You did respond to a post with the first article speaking directly on Senate Judiciary Testimony from Barr and the second article also including testimony from that source. I thought that people currently debating about Barr and disputed sections in the Mueller report and Barr summary had seen the developments, ie were making claims based on the biggest evolution of the topic to date, and wouldn't respond to posts based on that judiciary committee testimony if they weren't informed. The question stands on the two specific things you posited that he contradicted in sworn testimony, if you're still wondering. The link to the post with questions is here. The link to the post you responded too, on the subject of the "Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday" and conclusions which may be drawn about the subject from that testimony, is linked here. I do recommend you reread both posts if you need to reaquaint yourself with the context to make determinations on perjury or repudiation. I also recommend googling the quotes and spending 2-5 minutes on articles with the quotes if you need further establishing information than what I gave.
On May 04 2019 05:52 Danglars wrote: I don't think a lot of these arguments are worth pursuing if sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee functions similar to user opinions and are brushed off easily. It's sworn testimony under threat of perjury. It's specific to important questions raised by elected Democratic leaders. If it can't be cited as something concrete not to be lightly dismissed, then I'm feeding obvious trolls and shame on me for not recognizing their motives.
What interests me about these conversations regarding the Mueller report is the persistent grasping at straws to keep the Russia conspiracy/obstruction narrative alive. The disconnect from reality for people still promoting this stuff is astounding. That people are struggling so much with with the idea that Mueller might be a political actor or that there is no dispute that he didn't conclude in his report that there was probable cause of a crime fascinates me, as does the inability of these same people to recognize how persistently wrong that they have been on all of this stuff for two+ years. The question that I have is what do these folks need to see to finally wake up? The Mueller report clearly isn't enough. Will the upcoming OIG report matter? Will declassification of the underlying investigation documents (FISA, etc) matter? Do we have to wait for criminal prosecutions and convictions of those involved? How much is really enough?
It's astounding from a certain perspective, no doubt. From another perspective, my observation of this political thread since the Trump campaign shows that all someone needs to keep grasping at straws is company in the effort. That could be 1-2 other posters, or a columnist, or some politician. It isn't cold analysis of the increasingly farcical theories (or even coming to grips with the changing locus of collusion/campaign finance/obstruction), it's identification of fellow travelers that will make the same logical leaps that keeps this going on. It'll continue until opinion leaders and sufficient fellow posters determine that the costs of furthering the Russia collusion hoax outweigh the benefits of never having to deny their former conspiratorial fervor (as possible examples, see: Barr treatment was a step too far for Phil Mudd, CNNBill Scher of Politico says to move on). I also think they hope that by the time the last fumble for tangible evidence falls, people will forget how invested they were in Barr's perfidy or Trump's knowledge of collusion or Papadopoulos or Carter Page or the rest. Who really wants to look back on 30+ months of being wrong on collusion and change their behavior? Who really wants to re-evaluate what sources they trust and what threshold of information it takes to conclude ideological opponents are full of shit? That's some serious ego-destroying introspection and it will cause friction with former members of your tribe and sub-tribe.
I think the underlying psychology is best described by Hoffer's "The True Believer." I don't know if you've read that one. What I'm seeing is similar to the mass movements he describes, both in the leaders (eg Schiff, Pelosi, Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Swalwell, innumerable NYT/WaPo/Atlantic journalists, Maddow) and recruitment of followers. Desire for change in President, feeling low from Trump tweets, united action, self-sacrifice, tribe, and a desire for a better future that's Trumpless.
I'm still exploring the dissimilarities, and whether possible events like the re-election of Trump or the indictment of more Obama administration figures for crimes in office would change anything. I doubt declassifying the FISA memo will change anybody on the left's opinions. Deputy AG Rosenstein has already resigned. People have already clung to the sufficiency of noting "paid for by a political entity." I don't know how far up the last fall guy reaches in possible indictments, but I don't think the top political actors in this mess got enough ink on their hands to convict.
On May 04 2019 05:52 Danglars wrote: I don't think a lot of these arguments are worth pursuing if sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee functions similar to user opinions and are brushed off easily. It's sworn testimony under threat of perjury. It's specific to important questions raised by elected Democratic leaders. If it can't be cited as something concrete not to be lightly dismissed, then I'm feeding obvious trolls and shame on me for not recognizing their motives.
What interests me about these conversations regarding the Mueller report is the persistent grasping at straws to keep the Russia conspiracy/obstruction narrative alive. The disconnect from reality for people still promoting this stuff is astounding. That people are struggling so much with with the idea that Mueller might be a political actor or that there is no dispute that he didn't conclude in his report that there was probable cause of a crime fascinates me, as does the inability of these same people to recognize how persistently wrong that they have been on all of this stuff for two+ years. The question that I have is what do these folks need to see to finally wake up? The Mueller report clearly isn't enough. Will the upcoming OIG report matter? Will declassification of the underlying investigation documents (FISA, etc) matter? Do we have to wait for criminal prosecutions and convictions of those involved? How much is really enough?
I'll take a month ban if anyone ever gets convicted for the FISA nonsense. It's going to go the same road as the Seth Rich story or the busses full of immigrants doing election fraud story -> to the trashcan.
I still don't understand why you are not concerned about any of the conduct reported in the Mueller report. It really shouldn't matter if criminal charges happen or not. Or how you brush aside all the charges that were brought to the people Trump worked closely with. Those aren't fake. Manafort is in prison.
The conduct cited in the Mueller report isn't great and certainly not what I really want to see from my president. However, it can't be fairly viewed in a vacuum. Think about it from Trump's perspective. He has a rogue FBI director who is not only lying to him about the scope of the FBI's investigation into his campaign, but also refuses to publicly state that Trump isn't the subject of the investigation. He has hostile elements within his administration and the DOJ who are actively leaking false and incendiary shit to the press to insinuate that he's in bed with the Russians. Then, he has to deal with a dipshit AG who needlessly recuses himself, which ultimately results in the appointment of a special counsel who makes it quite obvious that the point of the investigation isn't looking into the veracity of the Russia/Trump collusion crap so much as it is creating the basis for an obstruction of justice charge. It can't be overstated how much Trump was under siege. Frankly, I'm amazed that he acted as well as he did.
Why can’t it be viewed in a vacuum? Acted as well as he did are you having a laugh?
On May 04 2019 06:01 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: You didn't provide the context of sworn testimony when you first brought me those quotes lol.
You didn't ask for the source when I first brought up the direct quotes, so I didn't know that you hadn't read up on the testimony before the Judiciary Committee. You did respond to a post with the first article speaking directly on Senate Judiciary Testimony from Barr and the second article also including testimony from that source. I thought that people currently debating about Barr and disputed sections in the Mueller report and Barr summary had seen the developments, ie were making claims based on the biggest evolution of the topic to date, and wouldn't respond to posts based on that judiciary committee testimony if they weren't informed. The question stands on the two specific things you posited that he contradicted in sworn testimony, if you're still wondering. The link to the post with questions is here. The link to the post you responded too, on the subject of the "Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday" and conclusions which may be drawn about the subject from that testimony, is linked here. I do recommend you reread both posts if you need to reaquaint yourself with the context to make determinations on perjury or repudiation. I also recommend googling the quotes and spending 2-5 minutes on articles with the quotes if you need further establishing information than what I gave.
I guess the problem is I thought you were attacking the Mueller letter again for being against the press. This was the immediate conservative spin and just not true, the letter is not about press. But you were using Barr's statement of what Mueller said about the press and not the letter.
I watched a lot of the testimony and read his opening statement but didn't know the second quote. The first one i did recognize from the WaPo article as a statement from a spokesperson. I wouldn't take that as Muellers word so that is what I explained, especially since the letter signed by Mueller contradicts that statement. Now I searched in the C-span transcript and see that Barr also stated something like that in his testimony. Fine. It admit would be strange to perjure himself that way. Note I never mentioned anything about perjury though, neither did I say your quotes were falsified. I thought it was just bullshit statement from the administration as often they do. Saying it under oath is different, I agree.
It still makes no sense to me be how both the Mueller letter saying it doesn't capture subject, nature and context of his work, and a Mueller saying on the phone nothing in the letter was inaccurate or misleading quote can coexist. Surely it has to be either/or. This is why I referenced us needing to hear Mueller.
The second quote I never even heard of so indeed googled it, and found the link to the testimony. I said my first thought is this was Barr misstating. He has said a lot of things that are incorrect if you look at the details, there is plenty of reporting on this. He shuffles words around and changes the meaning of things. I don't know the line for perjury when not answering a yes/no question. I just said I think this might be another misstatement.
I admit if the
Special Counsel Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying, but-for the OLC opinion, he would've found obstruction
quote is faithful it's pretty big change on how I viewed the obstruction part of the report. It might just be a very defensive statement because they never tried to look for charges due the guidelines so he can't be certain that they would come, but it makes Mueller look indecisive indeed.
But, since this quote is pretty important, why did Barr not put it in his written statement? And if his phone call brought all these important new Mueller quotes, why does he outright deny the senate access to the notes made about this meeting when it would help him defend his position. It's not a good look if he doesn't want people to know what other things Mueller said.
Did you make a memorandum of your conversation?” Blumenthal asked.
“No, I didn’t,” Barr responded.
“Did anyone, either you or anyone on your staff, memorialize your conversation with Robert Mueller?” Blumenthal said.
“Yes,” Barr added.
Blumenthal then asked, “Who did that?”
“There were notes taken of the call,” Barr said.
“May we have those notes?” Blumenthal continued.
After Barr said “no,” Blumenthal responded by asking “why not.”
Attorneys generally don’t divulge work product. Blumenthal has no business asking for that stuff, particularly when there isn’t even a dispute over what happened.
On May 04 2019 06:01 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: You didn't provide the context of sworn testimony when you first brought me those quotes lol.
You didn't ask for the source when I first brought up the direct quotes, so I didn't know that you hadn't read up on the testimony before the Judiciary Committee. You did respond to a post with the first article speaking directly on Senate Judiciary Testimony from Barr and the second article also including testimony from that source. I thought that people currently debating about Barr and disputed sections in the Mueller report and Barr summary had seen the developments, ie were making claims based on the biggest evolution of the topic to date, and wouldn't respond to posts based on that judiciary committee testimony if they weren't informed. The question stands on the two specific things you posited that he contradicted in sworn testimony, if you're still wondering. The link to the post with questions is here. The link to the post you responded too, on the subject of the "Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday" and conclusions which may be drawn about the subject from that testimony, is linked here. I do recommend you reread both posts if you need to reaquaint yourself with the context to make determinations on perjury or repudiation. I also recommend googling the quotes and spending 2-5 minutes on articles with the quotes if you need further establishing information than what I gave.
I guess the problem is I thought you were attacking the Mueller letter again for being against the press. This was the immediate conservative spin and just not true, the letter is not about press. But you were using Barr's statement of what Mueller said about the press and not the letter.
I watched a lot of the testimony and read his opening statement but didn't know the second quote. The first one i did recognize from the WaPo article as a statement from a spokesperson. I wouldn't take that as Muellers word so that is what I explained, especially since the letter signed by Mueller contradicts that statement. Now I searched in the C-span transcript and see that Barr also stated something like that in his testimony. Fine. It admit would be strange to perjure himself that way. Note I never mentioned anything about perjury though, neither did I say your quotes were falsified. I thought it was just bullshit statement from the administration as often they do. Saying it under oath is different, I agree.
It still makes no sense to me be how both the Mueller letter saying it doesn't capture subject, nature and context of his work, and a Mueller saying on the phone nothing in the letter was inaccurate or misleading quote can coexist. Surely it has to be either/or. This is why I referenced us needing to hear Mueller.
The second quote I never even heard of so indeed googled it, and found the link to the testimony. I said my first thought is this was Barr misstating. He has said a lot of things that are incorrect if you look at the details, there is plenty of reporting on this. He shuffles words around and changes the meaning of things. I don't know the line for perjury when not answering a yes/no question. I just said I think this might be another misstatement.
Special Counsel Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying, but-for the OLC opinion, he would've found obstruction
quote is faithful it's pretty big change on how I viewed the obstruction part of the report. It might just be a very defensive statement because they never tried to look for charges due the guidelines so he can't be certain that they would come, but it makes Mueller look indecisive indeed.
But, since this quote is pretty important, why did Barr not put it in his written statement? And if his phone call brought all these important new Mueller quotes, why does he outright deny the senate access to the notes made about this meeting when it would help him defend his position. It's not a good look if he doesn't want people to know what other things Mueller said.
On May 04 2019 05:52 Danglars wrote: I don't think a lot of these arguments are worth pursuing if sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee functions similar to user opinions and are brushed off easily. It's sworn testimony under threat of perjury. It's specific to important questions raised by elected Democratic leaders. If it can't be cited as something concrete not to be lightly dismissed, then I'm feeding obvious trolls and shame on me for not recognizing their motives.
What interests me about these conversations regarding the Mueller report is the persistent grasping at straws to keep the Russia conspiracy/obstruction narrative alive. The disconnect from reality for people still promoting this stuff is astounding. That people are struggling so much with with the idea that Mueller might be a political actor or that there is no dispute that he didn't conclude in his report that there was probable cause of a crime fascinates me, as does the inability of these same people to recognize how persistently wrong that they have been on all of this stuff for two+ years. The question that I have is what do these folks need to see to finally wake up? The Mueller report clearly isn't enough. Will the upcoming OIG report matter? Will declassification of the underlying investigation documents (FISA, etc) matter? Do we have to wait for criminal prosecutions and convictions of those involved? How much is really enough?
I'll take a month ban if anyone ever gets convicted for the FISA nonsense. It's going to go the same road as the Seth Rich story or the busses full of immigrants doing election fraud story -> to the trashcan.
I still don't understand why you are not concerned about any of the conduct reported in the Mueller report. It really shouldn't matter if criminal charges happen or not. Or how you brush aside all the charges that were brought to the people Trump worked closely with. Those aren't fake. Manafort is in prison.
The conduct cited in the Mueller report isn't great and certainly not what I really want to see from my president. However, it can't be fairly viewed in a vacuum. Think about it from Trump's perspective. He has a rogue FBI director who is not only lying to him about the scope of the FBI's investigation into his campaign, but also refuses to publicly state that Trump isn't the subject of the investigation. He has hostile elements within his administration and the DOJ who are actively leaking false and incendiary shit to the press to insinuate that he's in bed with the Russians. Then, he has to deal with a dipshit AG who needlessly recuses himself, which ultimately results in the appointment of a special counsel who makes it quite obvious that the point of the investigation isn't looking into the veracity of the Russia/Trump collusion crap so much as it is creating the basis for an obstruction of justice charge. It can't be overstated how much Trump was under siege. Frankly, I'm amazed that he acted as well as he did.
Now take the opposite view, and ask yourself from the viewpoint of DOJ/FBI what should you do when a candidate to the presidency and several members of his campaign are obviously publicly lying every step of the way, and trying to hide a boatload of interactions with a foreign power considered as an enemy. They HAD to investigate, and to avoid the appearance of interfering with a political campaign, to do it in a very low-key way. The steps that Trump has taken afterwards, raising an awful lot of doubt over obstruction, are self-inflicted since he thinks he's the ultimate boss and has no grasp on how to stay safe legally when in full public view (which I find somewhat strange since he has strived for public exposure his whole life, but as a private citizen that could litigate the hell out of everything he strong-armed through. So he also has a lot of experience of legal struggles).
He incited doubt every step of the way due to his overall conduct, and nearly every action he has taken for the last 3 years kept raising doubts, due to his inability to be transparent. From meetings with Putin, to public statements, to lies, to drafting false reports, to trying to remove the SC (!?), to hiring crooks, compromised people and surrounding himself with idiots (only the best he said ! Remember he appointed Sessions)... I could go on several pages. It's so apparent he doesn't even know what the fuck he is doing (except selling his brand and craving exposure by doing crazy statements).
No, I don't think he acted "as well as he did", as he did pretty damning things, as he created the conditions to his siege by his own behaviour and deserved all he got. That's what happens when you fire your whole transition team prior to the transition, and so have no one to vet for positions. People of experience who could explain what you should do and how to have a good presidency. But he didn't care about the country.
On May 04 2019 05:52 Danglars wrote: I don't think a lot of these arguments are worth pursuing if sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee functions similar to user opinions and are brushed off easily. It's sworn testimony under threat of perjury. It's specific to important questions raised by elected Democratic leaders. If it can't be cited as something concrete not to be lightly dismissed, then I'm feeding obvious trolls and shame on me for not recognizing their motives.
What interests me about these conversations regarding the Mueller report is the persistent grasping at straws to keep the Russia conspiracy/obstruction narrative alive. The disconnect from reality for people still promoting this stuff is astounding. That people are struggling so much with with the idea that Mueller might be a political actor or that there is no dispute that he didn't conclude in his report that there was probable cause of a crime fascinates me, as does the inability of these same people to recognize how persistently wrong that they have been on all of this stuff for two+ years. The question that I have is what do these folks need to see to finally wake up? The Mueller report clearly isn't enough. Will the upcoming OIG report matter? Will declassification of the underlying investigation documents (FISA, etc) matter? Do we have to wait for criminal prosecutions and convictions of those involved? How much is really enough?
I'll take a month ban if anyone ever gets convicted for the FISA nonsense. It's going to go the same road as the Seth Rich story or the busses full of immigrants doing election fraud story -> to the trashcan.
I still don't understand why you are not concerned about any of the conduct reported in the Mueller report. It really shouldn't matter if criminal charges happen or not. Or how you brush aside all the charges that were brought to the people Trump worked closely with. Those aren't fake. Manafort is in prison.
The conduct cited in the Mueller report isn't great and certainly not what I really want to see from my president. However, it can't be fairly viewed in a vacuum. Think about it from Trump's perspective. He has a rogue FBI director who is not only lying to him about the scope of the FBI's investigation into his campaign, but also refuses to publicly state that Trump isn't the subject of the investigation. He has hostile elements within his administration and the DOJ who are actively leaking false and incendiary shit to the press to insinuate that he's in bed with the Russians. Then, he has to deal with a dipshit AG who needlessly recuses himself, which ultimately results in the appointment of a special counsel who makes it quite obvious that the point of the investigation isn't looking into the veracity of the Russia/Trump collusion crap so much as it is creating the basis for an obstruction of justice charge. It can't be overstated how much Trump was under siege. Frankly, I'm amazed that he acted as well as he did.
Now take the opposite view, and ask yourself from the viewpoint of DOJ/FBI what should you do when a candidate to the presidency and several members of his campaign are obviously publicly lying every step of the way, and trying to hide a boatload of interactions with a foreign power considered as an enemy. They HAD to investigate, and to avoid the appearance of interfering with a political campaign, to do it in a very low-key way. The steps that Trump has taken afterwards, raising an awful lot of doubt over obstruction, are self-inflicted since he thinks he's the ultimate boss and has no grasp on how to stay safe legally when in full public view (which I find somewhat strange since he has strived for public exposure his whole life, but as a private citizen that could litigate the hell out of everything he strong-armed through. So he also has a lot of experience of legal struggles).
He incited doubt every step of the way due to his overall conduct, and nearly every action he has taken for the last 3 years kept raising doubts, due to his inability to be transparent. From meetings with Putin, to public statements, to lies, to drafting false reports, to trying to remove the SC (!?), to hiring crooks, compromised people and surrounding himself with idiots (only the best he said ! Remember he appointed Sessions)... I could go on several pages. It's so apparent he doesn't even know what the fuck he is doing (except selling his brand and craving exposure by doing crazy statements).
No, I don't think he acted "as well as he did", as he did pretty damning things, as he created the conditions to his siege by his own behaviour and deserved all he got. That's what happens when you fire your whole transition team prior to the transition, and so have no one to vet for positions. People of experience who could explain what you should do and how to have a good presidency. But he didn't care about the country.
Have to give credit to our friend to turn DJT into a victim, that took some highly virtuosic lawyer skill. That sincerely made me smile.
The very, very, very best and most charitable you can say of Trump in this story is that he is unethical, supremely ignorant of his own role and the way american democracy functions and extremely incompetent.
And that’s giving him a totally unreasonable benefit of the doubt and forgetting to mention that everything points out that he is also a criminal and totally corrupt.
On May 04 2019 05:52 Danglars wrote: I don't think a lot of these arguments are worth pursuing if sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee functions similar to user opinions and are brushed off easily. It's sworn testimony under threat of perjury. It's specific to important questions raised by elected Democratic leaders. If it can't be cited as something concrete not to be lightly dismissed, then I'm feeding obvious trolls and shame on me for not recognizing their motives.
What interests me about these conversations regarding the Mueller report is the persistent grasping at straws to keep the Russia conspiracy/obstruction narrative alive. The disconnect from reality for people still promoting this stuff is astounding. That people are struggling so much with with the idea that Mueller might be a political actor or that there is no dispute that he didn't conclude in his report that there was probable cause of a crime fascinates me, as does the inability of these same people to recognize how persistently wrong that they have been on all of this stuff for two+ years. The question that I have is what do these folks need to see to finally wake up? The Mueller report clearly isn't enough. Will the upcoming OIG report matter? Will declassification of the underlying investigation documents (FISA, etc) matter? Do we have to wait for criminal prosecutions and convictions of those involved? How much is really enough?
I'll take a month ban if anyone ever gets convicted for the FISA nonsense. It's going to go the same road as the Seth Rich story or the busses full of immigrants doing election fraud story -> to the trashcan.
I still don't understand why you are not concerned about any of the conduct reported in the Mueller report. It really shouldn't matter if criminal charges happen or not. Or how you brush aside all the charges that were brought to the people Trump worked closely with. Those aren't fake. Manafort is in prison.
The conduct cited in the Mueller report isn't great and certainly not what I really want to see from my president. However, it can't be fairly viewed in a vacuum. Think about it from Trump's perspective. He has a rogue FBI director who is not only lying to him about the scope of the FBI's investigation into his campaign, but also refuses to publicly state that Trump isn't the subject of the investigation. He has hostile elements within his administration and the DOJ who are actively leaking false and incendiary shit to the press to insinuate that he's in bed with the Russians. Then, he has to deal with a dipshit AG who needlessly recuses himself, which ultimately results in the appointment of a special counsel who makes it quite obvious that the point of the investigation isn't looking into the veracity of the Russia/Trump collusion crap so much as it is creating the basis for an obstruction of justice charge. It can't be overstated how much Trump was under siege. Frankly, I'm amazed that he acted as well as he did.
Now take the opposite view, and ask yourself from the viewpoint of DOJ/FBI what should you do when a candidate to the presidency and several members of his campaign are obviously publicly lying every step of the way, and trying to hide a boatload of interactions with a foreign power considered as an enemy. They HAD to investigate, and to avoid the appearance of interfering with a political campaign, to do it in a very low-key way. The steps that Trump has taken afterwards, raising an awful lot of doubt over obstruction, are self-inflicted since he thinks he's the ultimate boss and has no grasp on how to stay safe legally when in full public view (which I find somewhat strange since he has strived for public exposure his whole life, but as a private citizen that could litigate the hell out of everything he strong-armed through. So he also has a lot of experience of legal struggles).
He incited doubt every step of the way due to his overall conduct, and nearly every action he has taken for the last 3 years kept raising doubts, due to his inability to be transparent. From meetings with Putin, to public statements, to lies, to drafting false reports, to trying to remove the SC (!?), to hiring crooks, compromised people and surrounding himself with idiots (only the best he said ! Remember he appointed Sessions)... I could go on several pages. It's so apparent he doesn't even know what the fuck he is doing (except selling his brand and craving exposure by doing crazy statements).
No, I don't think he acted "as well as he did", as he did pretty damning things, as he created the conditions to his siege by his own behaviour and deserved all he got. That's what happens when you fire your whole transition team prior to the transition, and so have no one to vet for positions. People of experience who could explain what you should do and how to have a good presidency. But he didn't care about the country.
We don't need to try to imagine things from the FBI's perspective. It's all out there in the open in the Mueller report, and it's highly lacking in that it utterly fails to identify a valid predicate for the investigations that took place. This is the United States. Not a banana republic. I have yet to see a valid justification for any of the spying that government agencies did upon Trump and his people. Hell, Comey and other former government officials didn't even have the decency to admit that they did engage in spying operations on Trump's people. And when Barr finally suggested that it did happen, they all had a hissy fit until the NYT ran a news story confirming that spying did happen. So let's cut the shit. Who fraudulently submitted unverified information to a FISA court to get a FISA warrant? Who has been dishonest about the true origins of Crossfire Hurricane from day 1? Who has refused to discuss who Mifsud really is? Who's really the liar here? It ain't Trump.
EPT
