Special counsel Robert Mueller

[delayjf]

No he didn't - it was a summary designed to state Mueller's bottom line findings. All the detail is there for all to read. Why would Barr lie, knowing that the entire report would be made public within weeks.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

He was not... per Barr's testimony on 4/10.

See.
That pretty much involves participation.

Wrong again.

Woooshhhhh

[Tom]

Originally Posted by delayjf

No he didn't - it was a summary designed to state Mueller's bottom line findings. All the detail is there for all to read. Why would Barr lie, knowing that the entire report would be made public within weeks.

With very little redaction.

When you are in a court case, the jury tells you Guilty or not guilty.

That is what Barr did.

knuck knuck knuck

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by delayjf

No he didn't - it was a summary designed to state Mueller's bottom line findings. All the detail is there for all to read. Why would Barr lie, knowing that the entire report would be made public within weeks.

I'm referring to Barr's congressional testimony which is also what Pelosi was referring too...

Like I said its a overreach and she shouldn't have said it but he was lying when asked about complaints from Mueller and his team regarding the letter.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Tom

See.
That pretty much involves participation.

Wrong again.

Woooshhhhh

Barr said flatly that Mueller did not participate or consulted in the writing of his Letter to Congress on 4/10.

You said Mueller was asked and refused.

Either what you said is wrong or Barr lied under oath... I believe Barr.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Barr said flatly that Mueller did not participate or consulted in the writing of his Letter to Congress on 4/10.

You said Mueller was asked and refused.

Either what you said is wrong or Barr lied under oath... I believe Barr.

RIF.....he was asked if he wanted to review the letter before it was released.
He did not.

His reading the letter and offering suggestions would have been called participation.

woowoowoowoo woo

[reckless]

A current spin of a very old joke:

When Albert Einstein died and went to heaven, his heavenly mansion wasn't ready yet so he was placed in a temporary apartment with three roommates.

His first room roommate had an IQ of 180.

"Great," Einstein proclaimed. "We can talk and discuss the Theory of Relativity."

The second roommate had an IQ of 140.

"Very good," said Einstein. "We can talk about Mensa."

The third roommate had an IQ of 75.

"That's okay too," Einstein said. "We can talk about The Mueller Report, part 2.

[Tom]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.fcb0d768178d

Justice Department officials said Tuesday that they were taken aback by the tone of Mueller’s letter and that it came as a surprise to them that he had such concerns. Until they received the letter, they believed Mueller was in agreement with them on the process of reviewing the report and redacting certain types of information, a process that took several weeks. Barr has testified to Congress previously that Mueller declined the opportunity to review his four-page memo to lawmakers that distilled the essence of the special counsel’s findings.

YouTube

[newtothegame]

Originally Posted by Tom

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.fcb0d768178d



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIWY8UyW9bw

So wait Tom, you mean to tell me that that word "decline" has a meaning?? One that any "normal person" should understand??

[Tom]

I decline to answer that.

[MargieRose]

Here is AG Barr's controversial question and answer. Pay attention to the word "findings." Then tell me where and how AG Barr lied:

Watch: Moment In April 9 Testimony Where AG Bill Barr Is Said To Have Lied About Mueller Report

REP. CHARLIE CRIST: Reports have emerged recently, general, that members of the Special Counsel’s team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24th letter, that it does not adequately or accurately necessarily portray the report’s findings. Do you know what they’re referencing with that?

ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: No, I don’t. I think -- I suspect that they probably wanted more put out, but in my view, I was not interested in putting out summaries or trying to summarize. Because I think any summary regardless of who prepares it not only runs the risk of being underinclusive or overinclusive but also would trigger a lot of discussion and analysis that really should await everything coming out at once.

I was not interested in a summary of the report, and in fact, at the time I put out that March 24 letter, there was nothing from the special counsel that wasn't marked as potentially containing 6(e) [sealed grand jury] material and I had no material that had been sanitized of 6(e) material, so I felt I should state the bottom line conclusions and I tried to use special counsel Mueller's language in doing that.

Now, read the letter and change the word "conclusions" to "findings," (one in the same) and tell me where and how AG Barr lied:

Read: Letter from special counsel Robert Mueller to Attorney General William Barr

Words matter!

[Ocala Mike]

He lied when he was asked about knowledge of Mueller disagreeing with the 4-page "summary."

https://www.vox.com/vox-sentences/20...ss-mueller-lie

[Tom]

Keep digging..eventually, you might get past the minutia layer.

[MargieRose]

Originally Posted by Ocala Mike

He lied when he was asked about knowledge of Mueller disagreeing with the 4-page "summary."

https://www.vox.com/vox-sentences/20...ss-mueller-lie

Where in Christ's question was Barr asked about the "4-page "summary""? I don't see the word "summary" mentioned in the question; Christ used the word "findings."

Do you know the difference between the meaning the two words?

I'll break it down further:

Per Vox:

"Mueller expressed concern that Barr’s four-page summary of his report “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of his team’s investigation."

Barr did not issue a "summary" of Mueller's report. He explained that in his response to Christ.

Are "capture the context, nature, and substance," individually or together, words that mean FINDINGS?

Did Mueller ever say or write that he did not agree with Barr's findings/conclusion of his report?

Words matter!

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Have you read my posts? How many times must I state the DoJ rules do not apply to the DoJ (Mueller) making a finding that a crime has been committed. The opinion does not prevent, prohibit, stop, remove Mueller's authority, etc. to make a factual finding, based on his thorough investigation, that the President committed a crime.

In fact that was the Trump haters' wet dream. Mueller finding that the President obstructed justice. With a crime of obstruction the table would have been set for impeachment. Remember, impeachment is based on high crimes and misdemeanors. Once the DoJ (Special Counsel) found a sitting President committed a crime, then the House definitely has grounds to start the removal process through impeachment.

The above-scenario is how our Constitutional governmental process works. For example the Nellie Ohr criminal referral. Congress made a criminal referral to the DoJ to investigate if she committed the crime of perjury. Congress, made the criminal referral, as congress does not investigate crimes and congress does not make prosecutorial decisions. The criminal process of investigating crimes and making prosecutorial decisions is the domain of the DoJ.

The theory that Mueller could not charge the President with a crime and he left that determination to congress, violates the three branches of government separation of powers. If Mueller believed, which I highly doubt, because he said in his report he had the authority to charge the President with a crime, and further that Mueller believed,as part of the criminal process, congress should investigate if the President committed a crime and to make a prosecutorial decision Mueller is even more inept than I previously credited him.

Again congress has no prosecutorial powers (see Nellie Ohr) . Prosecutorial decisions belong to the DoJ. From the view of the criminal process, if Mueller believed he could not make a prosecutorial decision, he should have not investigated obstruction.

However, as Ely stated yesterday Mueller wanted the political process to move forward, such as trying to discredit the AG and continue to sully the President as a criminal. For the above-reasons that is why Mueller is a political hack, who did not do his job by either making a prosecutorial decision on obstruction or the prudent decision not to investigate obstruction, if he believed, for any reason, he could not make a decision on obstruction.

To repeat to ad nauseam the DoJ rules do not prevent, preclude, stop, limit the Special Counsel's authority to make a finding that a sitting President committed a crime. Especially, a crime that would form the basis for impeachment of a sitting President.

You are not as clear or "legalese" as you think you are.

Mueller being prevented from indicting and charging did prevent him from concluding a normal prosecutive binary decision. Since just stating guilt would have given the accused no immediate legal recourse. That normally takes place in court in a trial. And therefore a specific guilty would have been prejudicial to a normal trial. His intent was to pass his EVIDENCED to yes a political body, congress for a determination.

Mueller states that.

So now Chumpy and his fans are prematurely celebrating. “No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION.

Unfortunately for Chumpy et al. it's just a matter of time 'till both McGan and Mueller testify and we find out specifically what obstruction is evident and exactly Mueller's rational.

NOT BARR'S