Preparing for the Mueller report

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
73,630
63,112
So. Md.
#21
If the shoe was in the other foot, in no universe would you be saying that the report should not be given to congress. And you know it.

You post NPR because you think it makes you sound like an objective intellectual, but in reality, you are more extreme than most. You have consistently said that the FBI are the real problem. They never should have dreamed of investigating a campaign that they warned may be infiltrated by the Russians, but the campaign kept meeting with Russians to get dirt anyway. You think the media should have outright lied and made up alternative scenarios where the reason that Trump Jr. said “I love it” to Russian dirt on HRC and agreed to meet a Russian government attorney had something to do with Trump Sr. having business interests in Russia that he lied and insisted didn’t exist. Now you are advocating for the burial of the Mueller report. Posting NPR pieces won’t make you less of a pro Trump extremist.
Yep. That's kmiller's MO.
 
Nov 2018
4,834
1,284
Bel Air, MD
#22
The bottom line is this: No matter what, the Democrats will claim that Barr left out crucial information that indicates Trump is guilty of obstruction and collusion. It's the political games they play, because nothing satisfies them, unless Trump is guilty of what they've been accusing him of.

Democrats are sore losers, they've been whining for over two years now, what makes anyone think they will be satisfied with the Mueller Report when it's released on Thursday?

Americans will see through the Democrat scheme, as most sensible Americans will accept the findings as reported.
 
Jul 2014
63,382
51,673
CA
#23
Jul 2014
63,382
51,673
CA
#24
On Friday the thirteenth October 1989, by happenstance the same day as the “Black Friday” market crash, news leaked of a legal memo authored by William Barr. He was then serving as head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). It is highly uncommon for any OLC memo to make headlines. This one did because it was issued in “unusual secrecy” and concluded that the FBI could forcibly abduct people in other countries without the consent of the foreign state. The headline also noted the implication of the legal opinion at that moment in time. It appeared to pave the way for abducting Panama’s leader, Gen. Manuel Noriega.

Members of Congress asked to see the full legal opinion. Barr refused, but said he would provide an account that “summarizes the principal conclusions.” Sound familiar? In March 2019, when Attorney General Barr was handed Robert Mueller’s final report, he wrote that he would “summarize the principal conclusions” of the special counsel’s report for the public.

When Barr withheld the full OLC opinion in 1989 and said to trust his summary of the principal conclusions, Yale law school professor Harold Koh wrote that Barr’s position was “particularly egregious.” Congress also had no appetite for Barr’s stance, and eventually issued a subpoena to successfully wrench the full OLC opinion out of the Department.

When the OLC opinion was finally made public long after Barr left office, it was clear that Barr’s summary had failed to fully disclose the opinion’s principal conclusions. It is better to think of Barr’s summary as a redacted version of the full OLC opinion. That’s because the “summary” took the form of 13 pages of written testimony. The document was replete with quotations from court cases, legal citations, and the language of the OLC opinion itself. Despite its highly detailed analysis, this 13-page version omitted some of the most consequential and incendiary conclusions from the actual opinion. And there was evidently no justifiable reason for having withheld those parts from Congress or the public.

Barr’s Playbook: He Misled Congress When Omitting Parts of Justice Dep’t Memo in 1989
 
Mar 2007
32,129
6,273
#25
Congress has been given grand jury testimony in the past. There is no reason this should be an exception. This is of the utmost public and historic interest.

Barr should make a request of the judge and get the legal ball rolling. He would certainly do that if he actually was interested in transparency and not a blatant stooge
Example please? In context please?

And please keep in mind that the Clinton matters had no international aspect, no intelligence issues, no computer hacking and far fewer mysteries. People coming forward for interviews in the Russia matter are very likely to be hepped up on the Resist movement or the Deep State loathing movement and just sharing conspiracy theories. You cannot underestimate how lives will be ruined by pols cherry picking and quoting limited bits of "evidence" and further stimulating the partisan BS.

I have watched posters like yourself minimizing the Peter Strozk, Lisa Page emails and pretending they have no connection to a larger group of people with the same views.

The same things would happen with a complete version of the Mueller report. He was hired to indict people. He's not a legal or historical journalist or poli-sci analyst. So the report is likely to be a lot of raw information, sources for potential indictments.

I have been saying for over a year that the people wanted a 911 style report that would fully explain what occurred in the 2016 election. You can't pretend you will get that from Mueller. He's a prosecutor.
 
Likes: pragmatic
Mar 2007
32,129
6,273
#26
Yep. That's kmiller's MO.
No it's a pack of lies and distortions. I have consistently been put in boxes that do not define me and I have been consistently right about my actual predictions.

I have been advocating for NPR in every discussion about journalism and over the past year posting plenty of articles that expose the weakness in the Trump defenses.

You and boxxy just want me to be wrong, so you pretend a lot.

I guess that standing up for facts and strong journalism makes me an outlier. Tough toenails. I mean to persist.
 

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
73,630
63,112
So. Md.
#27
No it's a pack of lies and distortions. I have consistently been put in boxes that do not define me and I have been consistently right about my actual predictions.

I have been advocating for NPR in every discussion about journalism and over the past year posting plenty of articles that expose the weakness in the Trump defenses.

You and boxxy just want me to be wrong, so you pretend a lot.

I guess that standing up for facts and strong journalism makes me an outlier. Tough toenails. I mean to persist.
You have the whole narrative surrounding the Russia thing distorted in some cases and outright wrong in others. There is no deep state out to perform a coup against Trump. Strozk and Page did nothing illegal to interfere in the election. Strozk co-wrote the letter and supported reopening the investigation into Clinton's emails that contributed to her defeat just a few days before the election. He NEVER worked against Trump. You've convinced yourself that that is what happened and you contort everything to try to make it fit that portrait in your head. You are completely mistaken.
 
Mar 2007
32,129
6,273
#29
You have the whole narrative surrounding the Russia thing distorted in some cases and outright wrong in others. There is no deep state out to perform a coup against Trump. Strozk and Page did nothing illegal to interfere in the election. Strozk co-wrote the letter and supported reopening the investigation into Clinton's emails that contributed to her defeat just a few days before the election. He NEVER worked against Trump. You've convinced yourself that that is what happened and you contort everything to try to make it fit that portrait in your head. You are completely mistaken.
Again, you are totally wrong. I do not believe in a deep state and did a whole thread on what I would call a seditious vanguard, a small group of well placed people trying to undermine Trump and protect the Obama legacy.. I am with the IG on the matter of a possible larger group and am perfectly willing to wait for his and the AG's reports to see if I am right. You really should watch the Cspan vid and study what happened when Gowdy interviewed Horowitz.
 

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
73,630
63,112
So. Md.
#30
Again, you are totally wrong. I do not believe in a deep state and did a whole thread on what I would call a seditious vanguard, a small group of well placed people trying to undermine Trump and protect the Obama legacy.. I am with the IG on the matter of a possible larger group and am perfectly willing to wait for his and the AG's reports to see if I am right. You really should watch the Cspan vid and study what happened when Gowdy interviewed Horowitz.
See post #28. Your scenario is absurd. And yes, it describes a deep state.
 

Similar Discussions