Mueller report to be released Thursday

[Lastamender]

Oh yeah, and Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton on his plane to talk about the grandkids, huh. Idiot.

That was investigated.

By Obama's FBI, that does not count.. You can't be serious.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Oh yeah, and Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton on his plane to talk about the grandkids, huh. Idiot.

That was investigated.

By Obama's FBI, that does not count.. You can't be serious.

Sure pal. Investigations are conclusive and trustworthy,as long as the results pander to your political fetishes. Got it.

 

[RDD_1210]

So you think Barr's read of the report is incorrect?

Exactly. Ignore the facts in front of you. Produce the conclusion you WANT to hear.

Ignorance is bliss.

Facts? What facts. You wouldn’t know one if you saw one

Barr's statement said the Mueller report does not exonerate Trump.

Fact.

Which part of that did I get wrong?

does not implicate or exonerate, what part of that don't you get?

I didn't say it implicated. I said it does not exonerate him, which you just agreed with.

Thanks for backing me up.

 

[Lastamender]

Oh yeah, and Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton on his plane to talk about the grandkids, huh. Idiot.

That was investigated.

By Obama's FBI, that does not count.. You can't be serious.

Sure pal. Investigations are conclusive and trustworthy,as long as the results pander to your political fetishes. Got it.

Barr will soon show you what a real investigation is. Get ready to eat more crow.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Hmmm, I think there's an excellent chance that whichever of your heroes leaks it is going to get prosecuted

Doubtful. The leak would be anonymous. Deep, calming breaths.

By all means, sit there breathing and assuring yourself that the left can get their way and ignore the law without consequences.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Oh yeah, and Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton on his plane to talk about the grandkids, huh. Idiot.

That was investigated.

By Obama's FBI, that does not count.. You can't be serious.

Sure pal. Investigations are conclusive and trustworthy,as long as the results pander to your political fetishes. Got it.

Barr will soon show you what a real investigation is. Get ready to eat more crow.

Haha...sure.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why didn't Barr just wait until Friday night at midnight?

Do you literally whine about everything? The sun coming up in the east every morning probably has you bitterly ranting about the unfairness of it all.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So we move from Cliff Notes to a Reader's Sigest condensed version.

When may we read the novel?

Barr did his homage to Trump and set the tone of discourse. He convinced the unconvincable that Trump is exonerated. Even after they read the dull, unredacted report, the Trumpians will defy truth and logic and stand behind the huckster buffoon.

You don't get to read the whole thing. No matter how much you might want to know certain information, you don't have a right to it. Learn to deal.

And anyone who's still clinging to the idea that "If we just see the unredacted report, it will turn out that Trump is REALLY guilty" has no business talking about others defying truth and logic.

 

[Nosmo King]

So we move from Cliff Notes to a Reader's Sigest condensed version.

When may we read the novel?

Barr did his homage to Trump and set the tone of discourse. He convinced the unconvincable that Trump is exonerated. Even after they read the dull, unredacted report, the Trumpians will defy truth and logic and stand behind the huckster buffoon.

You don't get to read the whole thing. No matter how much you might want to know certain information, you don't have a right to it. Learn to deal.

And anyone who's still clinging to the idea that "If we just see the unredacted report, it will turn out that Trump is REALLY guilty" has no business talking about others defying truth and logic.

Truth and logic?

What was the point of Barr's 'summary'? He could have said 'Special Counsel Mueller has delivered his report. I am working with a Redaction Team to prepare the report for release to the appropriate congressional,leaders. That release will happen in mid April.'

But that's not at all what he did.

He branded the 200+ page report in a 3 1/2 page 'summary' that he later said was not a summary. He set the one of discourse. He gave his overlord the shot at a victory lap. He stoked the hopes of Trumpians.

But he punted on obstruction of justice.

He gave us Cliff Notes and Trump and his acolytes think they have read a novel.

 

[Lastamender]

So we move from Cliff Notes to a Reader's Sigest condensed version.

When may we read the novel?

Barr did his homage to Trump and set the tone of discourse. He convinced the unconvincable that Trump is exonerated. Even after they read the dull, unredacted report, the Trumpians will defy truth and logic and stand behind the huckster buffoon.

You don't get to read the whole thing. No matter how much you might want to know certain information, you don't have a right to it. Learn to deal.

And anyone who's still clinging to the idea that "If we just see the unredacted report, it will turn out that Trump is REALLY guilty" has no business talking about others defying truth and logic.

Truth and logic?

What was the point of Barr's 'summary'? He could have said 'Special Counsel Mueller has delivered his report. I am working with a Redaction Team to prepare the report for release to the appropriate congressional,leaders. That release will happen in mid April.'

But that's not at all what he did.

He branded the 200+ page report in a 3 1/2 page 'summary' that he later said was not a summary. He set the one of discourse. He gave his overlord the shot at a victory lap. He stoked the hopes of Trumpians.

But he punted on obstruction of justice.

He gave us Cliff Notes and Trump and his acolytes think they have read a novel.

You have a hard time with losing, don't you?

 

[Cecilie1200]

What was the purpose of Narr's "summary" which he later said was not a summary?

Would it have not been a responsible thing for Trump's boy to say, upon the delivery of the report, 'we are currently working with the Special Counsel to make prudent and necessary redactions. We will release the report later in April.'

Instead he made proclamations of exoneration on collusion and the Trumpians further read that to say an exoneration on obstruction of justice. He set the tone, blew the air horn and gave Trump a shot at a victory lap. He branded the report as a done deal.

If that is so, what's the harm of releasing the entire report. Let's see the details.

1) Barr's summary of conclusions - NOT a summary of the entire report - was a courtesy, so that people didn't have to wait even longer to find out the basic results.

2) Barr DID say that. The fact that you didn't pay attention is no one's problem but yours.

From his letter to Congress summarizing Mueller's conclusions:

"I have requested the assistance of the Special Counsel in identifying all 6(e) information contained in the report as quickly as possible."

Maybe next time you research your subject, rather than just skimming headlines.

3) He proclaimed that Mueller had concluded there was no evidence of conspiracy or coordination, the actual crimes under investigation. Since that's what the report apparently actually says (because Mueller would have said something if it wasn't the truth), I fail to see your problem with it, other than the fact that the only answer you will accept is that you get your way. I know you illiterate leftists love to misuse the word "collusion" and pretend that's an actual crime of some sort so that you can justify calling nearly anything "proof" against Trump, but that's not how it works.

4) The harm of releasing the full report is the same as it has always been, and will continue to be no matter how much you plug your ears and pretend you can't hear it because it's not what you want: it's against the law. Our laws recognize that people have rights that supercede your obsessive desire to "get Trump", and the more you rant and rave about your apocryphal "right" to see information that's none of your damned business, the more apparent it becomes that our laws are correct in this regard.

 

[Nosmo King]

So we move from Cliff Notes to a Reader's Sigest condensed version.

When may we read the novel?

Barr did his homage to Trump and set the tone of discourse. He convinced the unconvincable that Trump is exonerated. Even after they read the dull, unredacted report, the Trumpians will defy truth and logic and stand behind the huckster buffoon.

You don't get to read the whole thing. No matter how much you might want to know certain information, you don't have a right to it. Learn to deal.

And anyone who's still clinging to the idea that "If we just see the unredacted report, it will turn out that Trump is REALLY guilty" has no business talking about others defying truth and logic.

Truth and logic?

What was the point of Barr's 'summary'? He could have said 'Special Counsel Mueller has delivered his report. I am working with a Redaction Team to prepare the report for release to the appropriate congressional,leaders. That release will happen in mid April.'

But that's not at all what he did.

He branded the 200+ page report in a 3 1/2 page 'summary' that he later said was not a summary. He set the one of discourse. He gave his overlord the shot at a victory lap. He stoked the hopes of Trumpians.

But he punted on obstruction of justice.

He gave us Cliff Notes and Trump and his acolytes think they have read a novel.

You have a hard time with losing, don't you?

I have a hard time believing a 300+ page report can be 'summarized' by a political appointee in 3 1/2 pages.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So we move from Cliff Notes to a Reader's Sigest condensed version.

When may we read the novel?

Barr did his homage to Trump and set the tone of discourse. He convinced the unconvincable that Trump is exonerated. Even after they read the dull, unredacted report, the Trumpians will defy truth and logic and stand behind the huckster buffoon.

You don't get to read the whole thing. No matter how much you might want to know certain information, you don't have a right to it. Learn to deal.

And anyone who's still clinging to the idea that "If we just see the unredacted report, it will turn out that Trump is REALLY guilty" has no business talking about others defying truth and logic.

Truth and logic?

What was the point of Barr's 'summary'? He could have said 'Special Counsel Mueller has delivered his report. I am working with a Redaction Team to prepare the report for release to the appropriate congressional,leaders. That release will happen in mid April.'

But that's not at all what he did.

He branded the 200+ page report in a 3 1/2 page 'summary' that he later said was not a summary. He set the one of discourse. He gave his overlord the shot at a victory lap. He stoked the hopes of Trumpians.

But he punted on obstruction of justice.

He gave us Cliff Notes and Trump and his acolytes think they have read a novel.

You have a hard time with losing, don't you?

I have a hard time believing a 300+ page report can be 'summarized' by a political appointee in 3 1/2 pages.

I have a hard time believing that you can be told multiple times that it wasn't a summary of the full report - including once IN THE SUMMARY - and still be trying to make an argument based on how you want to perceive things instead.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So we move from Cliff Notes to a Reader's Sigest condensed version.

When may we read the novel?

Barr did his homage to Trump and set the tone of discourse. He convinced the unconvincable that Trump is exonerated. Even after they read the dull, unredacted report, the Trumpians will defy truth and logic and stand behind the huckster buffoon.

You don't get to read the whole thing. No matter how much you might want to know certain information, you don't have a right to it. Learn to deal.

And anyone who's still clinging to the idea that "If we just see the unredacted report, it will turn out that Trump is REALLY guilty" has no business talking about others defying truth and logic.

Truth and logic?

What was the point of Barr's 'summary'? He could have said 'Special Counsel Mueller has delivered his report. I am working with a Redaction Team to prepare the report for release to the appropriate congressional,leaders. That release will happen in mid April.'

But that's not at all what he did.

He branded the 200+ page report in a 3 1/2 page 'summary' that he later said was not a summary. He set the one of discourse. He gave his overlord the shot at a victory lap. He stoked the hopes of Trumpians.

But he punted on obstruction of justice.

He gave us Cliff Notes and Trump and his acolytes think they have read a novel.

"What was the point of Barr's summary?"

"To tell people what the conclusions were so they wouldn't have to wait."

"But what was the point of Barr's summary?"

"Still to tell people what the conclusions were so they wouldn't have to wait."

"So there was no point to the summary. It must have been part of a cover-up."

* * *

"He could have said this."

"He DID say that. It was in the summary of conclusions."

"Well, why didn't he say this, then?"

"He did say that. Read the letter."

"He could have said this, but that's not what he did."

I think the most pertinent question here is, "Why would anyone bother answering your questions when you're going to ignore the answer and keep asking it?"

 

[Lesh]

1) Barr's summary of conclusions - NOT a summary of the entire report - was a courtesy,

Wrong. It was a PR stunt

I have a hard time believing a 300+ page report can be 'summarized' by a political appointee in 3 1/2 pages.

In four sentence fragments...in less that 48 hours

 

[basquebromance]

"A must read, Andy McCarthy’s column today, “Dirty dealings of dirt devils who concocted Trump-Russia probe.” The greatest Scam in political history. If the Mainstream Media were honest, which they are not, this story would be bigger and more important than Watergate. Someday!" - President Trump

 

[basquebromance]

It may be "mandatory" to leak the full Mueller report to ensure its release, says Pentagon Papers whistleblower

 

[DJT for Life]

100% Correct...Dumbass

Martha Stewart was convicted of obstruction, despite the fact that her insider trading case was thrown out.

Can there be obstruction of justice with no underlying crime?

Martha was convicted of LYING about the sale of stock, not obstruction.
THE MARTHA STEWART VERDICT: THE OVERVIEW; STEWART FOUND GUILTY OF LYING IN SALE OF STOCK

one count of conspiracy, two counts of making false statements and one count of obstruction of agency proceedings.

Also, Trump publicly admitted obstruction.

Martha was guilty of other crimes.

Martha's only crimes were conspiracy, lying, and obstruction. The insider trading was civil settlement, no criminal conviction.

Mueller has written that there was no collusion or conspiracy by Trump or any on his campaign.

We don't have Mueller's statements, only from Barr.

Because there is no other crime, Trump can be categorized as simply an innocent man being falsely accused
and simply defending himself.from a false charge.

If Mueller could have found just one instance of collusion he might have been able to charge obstruction. But because
he couldn't find a charge the entire fiasco will be remembered as a "witch hunt" that failed to produce a single indictment
of conspiring to collude or obstruction of justice.

But, don't you worry because the obstruction charges will be coming in the next few months to high ranking FBI and DOJ
officials right after Horowitz and Barr finish their investigations into how the witch hunt even got started.

There are plenty of on-going Trump investigations, such as at SDNY.

As I wrote previously...there is not one charge of conspiracy or collusion with the Russians. Not one.
The Special Prosecutor was assigned to investigate collusion. He found none. He found no conspiracy
to collude with the Russians. That turned the investigation into a witch hunt.

The SDNY work for Barr. You can bet your sweet ass they are not going to filing any frivolous charges.

 

[boedicca]

This should be the cover illustration:

 

[Lastamender]

So we move from Cliff Notes to a Reader's Sigest condensed version.

When may we read the novel?

Barr did his homage to Trump and set the tone of discourse. He convinced the unconvincable that Trump is exonerated. Even after they read the dull, unredacted report, the Trumpians will defy truth and logic and stand behind the huckster buffoon.

You don't get to read the whole thing. No matter how much you might want to know certain information, you don't have a right to it. Learn to deal.

And anyone who's still clinging to the idea that "If we just see the unredacted report, it will turn out that Trump is REALLY guilty" has no business talking about others defying truth and logic.

Truth and logic?

What was the point of Barr's 'summary'? He could have said 'Special Counsel Mueller has delivered his report. I am working with a Redaction Team to prepare the report for release to the appropriate congressional,leaders. That release will happen in mid April.'

But that's not at all what he did.

He branded the 200+ page report in a 3 1/2 page 'summary' that he later said was not a summary. He set the one of discourse. He gave his overlord the shot at a victory lap. He stoked the hopes of Trumpians.

But he punted on obstruction of justice.

He gave us Cliff Notes and Trump and his acolytes think they have read a novel.

You have a hard time with losing, don't you?

I have a hard time believing a 300+ page report can be 'summarized' by a political appointee in 3 1/2 pages.

I have a hard time believing a 300+ page report can be 'summarized' by a political appointee in 3 1/2 pages.

Do you honestly think what you believe has anything to do with it? Let some air out.