Jump to content
luv2 luv2 (New Member) New Member

Special Council Muller Report

Politics   (10,015 Views 541 Comments)
6,713 Visitors; 136 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.
advertisement

You are reading page 3 of Special Council Muller Report. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

Who should redact the Muller’s Report?

This poll is closed to new votes
  1. 1. Who should redact the Muller’s Report?

    • Attorney General William Barr
      1
    • House Intelligence Committee
      4
    • Who Cares
      1

6 members have participated

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 04/20/2019 at 07:28 PM
2 minutes ago, Lil Nel said:

I am sure you have never doubted Barr's 101-word summary, of a 300 page report, once. 

Not once. 

And why should you?

Trump handpicked Barr!!!!

101 words?  

Maybe you should first read his actual summary before speaking of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SC_RNDude said:

101 words?  

Maybe you should first read his actual summary before speaking of it.

Yep. No thought at all regarding Barr.

Just as I thought.

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, SC_RNDude said:

101 words?  

Maybe you should first read his actual summary before speaking of it.

You clearly don't realize that you, and everyone else has only seen and read 101 words of Mueller's actual report, in Barr's summary.

Barr used fragments in his summary.

But you never questioned this, dude.

Obviously.

Again, thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Lil Nel said:

You clearly don't realize that you, and everyone else has only seen and read 101 words of Mueller's actual report, in Barr's summary.

Barr used fragments in his summary.

But you never questioned this, dude.

Obviously.

Again, thanks!

You stated Barr’s summary was 101 words.  That is what I was questioning.

i know the summary indicates there was no conspiracy regarding Russia.  None of Mueller’s indictments have anything to do with a Russian conspiracy.

If Barr’s summary was two words, “no collusion” , it seems that would have been sufficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SC_RNDude said:

You stated Barr’s summary was 101 words.  That is what I was questioning.

i know the summary indicates there was no conspiracy regarding Russia.  None of Mueller’s indictments have anything to do with a Russian conspiracy.

If Barr’s summary was two words, “no collusion” , it seems that would have been sufficient.

Those weren't all of the words addressing collusion. Is context or truth important?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You’ll all be pleased to know that Mueller’s office is still on the job, and is assisting in the redaction process.

Of course, the NYT and WaPo don’t report that as they just wish to fan the flames of a coverup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
advertisement

A Huge Miscalculation

Quote

Management without credibility is generally doomed to failure, sooner or later. By pushing the bounds of credibility in his initial communique and then assuming he could use his positional power to control how and when he released the rest of the Mueller Report, the attorney general was making a calculation that he could tightly control the message in the president’s favor. But in so doing he was also taking a risk of compounding the problem by piling cover-up upon cover-up, scandal upon scandal. His refusal to be transparent has made him a subpoena magnet for the Democrats.

I suspect that this chosen pathway will be a huge legacy for Barr. It is not clear to me what he believes will be achieved by delaying or impairing congressional and public knowledge of the full report. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SC_RNDude said:

You’ll all be pleased to know that Mueller’s office is still on the job, and is assisting in the redaction process.

Of course, the NYT and WaPo don’t report that as they just wish to fan the flames of a coverup.

Too funny, dude, that last line.

You do have a sense of humor!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/4/2019 at 11:53 AM, Lil Nel said:

Are you at all familiar with the term "background"?

Apparently not.

But it is used in journalism, in order to protect sources.

I am sure you can't imagine why those on Mueller team wouldn't want to be identified.

Since Mueller is likely to be subpoenaed, and the report not yet public, it is perfectly reasonable for these sources not to be identified.

Your attempt to discredit news reports that you don't like is pretty obvious, and Trump 101.

I like to discredit news reports that fail to live up to the standards of a credible news report.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/45581/limbaugh-media-just-did-exactly-what-i-predicted-james-barrett?%3Futm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro

 

Edited by SC_RNDude
M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SC_RNDude said:

Is the Daily Wire one of your preferred and credible sources for information or "news"? Are you comparing their reporting to the NYT or Limbaugh's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Is the Daily Wire one of your preferred and credible sources for information or "news"? Are you comparing their reporting to the NYT or Limbaugh's?

It’s the NYT that published a story based on sources “familiar with the situation”.

I don’t consider Daily Wire and Limbaugh news sources.  I will say, the analysis by Limbaugh and some others such as Levin and Dan Bongino have played out to be pretty accurate regarding the Russia hoax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SC_RNDude said:

It’s the NYT that published a story based on sources “familiar with the situation”.

I don’t consider Daily Wire and Limbaugh news sources.  I will say, the analysis by Limbaugh and some others such as Levin and Dan Bongino have played out to be pretty accurate regarding the Russia hoax.

Do think Russia affected the 2016 election? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×