Jump to content
luv2 luv2 (New Member) New Member

Special Council Muller Report

Politics   (10,155 Views 541 Comments)
6,756 Visitors; 138 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.
advertisement

You are reading page 41 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

If a person needs to feel that something is true, they will, despite evidence to the contrary.

Either 'side' could say that; you who know me know I am not referring to you.

Sometimes when I read on these political threads, trying to follow something that is supposed to pass as 'logic', I feel as if I'm going cross-eyed, like trying to figure out an ESCHER drawing

Share this post


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

I’m not as in touch with Mueller’s feelings as some apparently are, but I’m not aware of him ever saying such a thing.

 

No.  Mueller didn’t say such a thing.  In fact, he has said Barr’s summary “was not inaccurate”.

 

Sorry.  Mueller was unable to recommend any charges of a crime.  So, it’s hard for me to believe that a ordinary citizen can credibly claim that not only did Trump break laws, that he did it intentionally.

 

That was Barr, not Mueller, who claimed Mueller told Barr that his summary "was not inaccurate", Mueller himself has clearly stated that Barr's summary was not accurate on two separate occasions.  We can also just directly compare the Mueller report with Barr's summary, which aside from a number of mischaracterizations, includes many claims that are directly contradicted by the Mueller report itself.

Mueller was pretty clear in listing the crimes committed and that the entity responsible for pursuing these charges is congress, I have no idea how you get that can be accurately described as being "unable to recommend any charges of a crime".  

Share this post


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

His findings were that there was no collusion and that he couldn’t recommend any charges of obstruction of justice (regarding the investigation of a crime that didn’t happen, btw.)

It doesn’t seem it’s the Trumpsters who are having trouble accepting that reality.

I wonder, btw, how many have read the entire section of US Code regarding obstruction of justice?  Or, are most people simply relying on the analysis of others?

I've read the Federal Code regarding obstruction of justice as well as the related case law and precedent, all of which taken together being what defines a crime.  I've also read Mueller's thorough review of the code, case law, and precedent, and the 10 separate instances where Trump appears to have committed a crime based on those definitions of what the crime of obstruction of justice is.  I'm not sure what you're debating about his conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MunoRN said:

I've read the Federal Code regarding obstruction of justice as well as the related case law and precedent, all of which taken together being what defines a crime.  I've also read Mueller's thorough review of the code, case law, and precedent, and the 10 separate instances where Trump appears to have committed a crime based on those definitions of what the crime of obstruction of justice is.  I'm not sure what you're debating about his conclusions.

You would be one of the rare few who have.  My question was directed to those who have said I can’t have a credible opinion on the Mueller investigation  unless I’ve read the entire report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MunoRN said:
2 hours ago, MunoRN said:

That was Barr, not Mueller, who claimed Mueller told Barr that his summary "was not inaccurate",

Are you saying Barr made it up?  That he lied during his testimony about this?  I frankly don’t even believe that you believe this.  

2 hours ago, MunoRN said:

Mueller himself has clearly stated that Barr's summary was not accurate on two separate occasions.

Do you have a quote or source for this?

everything in your post is your opinion without any examples or facts to back it up.  Of course, your entitled to it, but without knowing what exactly your talking about it’s difficult to address it.

 

Share this post


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

You would be one of the rare few who have.  My question was directed to those who have said I can’t have a credible opinion on the Mueller investigation  unless I’ve read the entire report.

You have exactly no reason to believe that I have not read the report or reviewed the relevant information.  I am not the poster making claims which are in conflict with the Mueller report and findings.

When a poster who has not read the report repeatedly posts opinions which are contradictory to the report or in error, is that a credible opinion?

Edited by toomuchbaloney

Share this post


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

 

Document: Robert Mueller's Letter to Bill BarrBarr

Mueller stays that Barr's summary letter "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions".

And "There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations."

Are you interpreting those words differently?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess it's the "opinion" of the Democrat congress that something went on and they need to see it through.  I'm not confident that they will be successful in finding anything out that we already don't know, but support the idea that they have to see it through no matter the political cost against them.

With that said, I'll just see how it plays out and probably won't comment further.

Share this post


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

You have exactly no reason to believe that I have not read the report or reviewed the relevant information.  I am not the poster making claims which are in conflict with the Mueller report and findings.

When a poster who has not read the report repeatedly posts opinions which are contradictory to the report or in error, is that a credible opinion?

I didn’t say you didn’t read the report.  I said to Muno he was one of the rare few who read the statute and case law.

Your misinterpretation of my simple post makes one wonder how much of the much more complicated Mueller report you may have misinterpreted.

Edited by SC_RNDude
I

Share this post


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

Document: Robert Mueller's Letter to Bill BarrBarr

Mueller stays that Barr's summary letter "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions".

And "There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations."

Are you interpreting those words differently?

I thought we covered this awhile ago.

“After the Attorney General received Special Counsel Mueller’s letter, he called him to discuss it,” Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said in a statement.

“In a cordial and professional conversation, the Special Counsel emphasized that nothing in the Attorney General’s March 24 letter was inaccurate or misleading. But, he expressed frustration over the lack of context and the resulting media coverage regarding the Special Counsel’s obstruction analysis,” she added.”

https://www.apnews.com/7f4938079acf4ece9a9c042aa9c068f3

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is John Dean relevant?

“It might be 2019, but Democrats are looking to John Dean to be their guiding light.

The former Richard Nixon White House counsel will testify before the House Judiciary Committee next week as part of a series of hearings about the Mueller report, offering Democrats a prime opportunity to further publicly highlight what a growing number of members believe to be impeachable offenses committed by President Donald Trump.”

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-impeachment-democrats-john-dean

Share this post


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

I didn’t say you didn’t read the report.  I said to Muno he was one of the rare few who read the statute and case law.

Your misinterpretation of my simple post makes one wonder how much of the much more complicated Mueller report you may have misinterpreted.

That is NOT what your post said.

Please reread the words you wrote.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×