Discussion > President Trump
Meanwhile, back on Earth
The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions.
How the F is this not 'inaccurate'?
Phil Clarke
Phil - since Mueller knew from the get-go of his "investigation" that there was no collusion with Russians by team Trump he focused on trying to contrive process crimes. If you want context etc. look no further than what Mueller and his team unequivocally knew prior to launch - but we know you won't look and will keep indulging that TDS twottery that characterises your posting here - so as usual - GFY.
tomo
You don't have to answer, obviously, but you asserted that Mueller stated that Barr's letter was not inaccurate, when in fact he wrote that it 'did not fully capture the context, nature and substance' of his enquiry.
Without trying to change the subject onto TDS irrelevancies, what led you to this inaccurate precis?
Like, I said, don't answer of you don't want to.
(Or can't).
Phil Clarke
It's like 24+ hours and some later - but - like Barr (Mueller's sometime boss) said - he didn't believe Mueller authored the letter and the claims you trail are diffuse enough to qualify as subjective snittiness without actual legal or evidential standing. They just didn't t like what Barr said about their handiwork.
Mueller afaik didn't and likely won't challenge the legal aspect of Barr's summary of his work - it'd be interesting if he did.
tomo
Ah, so you just made 'not inaccurate' up.
Thought so.
Phil Clarke
I'd add that it's my understanding that Democrats broke house rules to swerve having Barr come back for more questions .... Rep Collins (R-GA) laid that out pretty clearly. Why might the Democrats want not to hear from Barr?
Mueller's team might not like Barr's summary but the subjective assessment vs. hard legal points about actually prosecuting DJT is what this is about - and poor old Phil can't get his head around that - diddums.
tomo
GFY.
Phil Clarke
double diddums then?
tomo
May 2, 2019 at 6:14 PM | Phil Clarke
Why did you believe Steele's Dodgy Dossier? Or perhaps you still do?
You also believe in Mann's fiction and of course Gergis. Have you ever got anything right?
golf charlie
However, according to both the Post and the Justice Department, Mueller made clear that he did not feel Barr's summary was inaccurate. Instead, Mueller told Barr that media coverage of the letter had "misinterpreted" the results of the probe concerning obstruction of justice.Barr is expected to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday.
The Post's headline was entitled, "Mueller complained that Barr’s letter did not capture ‘context’ of Trump probe"
Gingrich brushed off the report.
“After all the noise you just shrug your shoulders and say, ‘so what?’ Mueller had every opportunity to come out the day that Barr released his letter. Mueller could have at any point decided to refute it and as I understand the actual key sentences, the distortion is by the news media. The distortion is not by Barr,” Gingrich said.Gingrich added, "Think about this. The media that Mueller is complaining about are the people who are now using Mueller’s complaint to further distort what is going on. You couldn't make this up.”
Meanwhile, back at the ranch in Canada
Conservative party campaign advertisement.
"Justin Trudeau is not who you were told he was in 2015. He's not as advertised."
clipe
Instead, Mueller told Barr that media coverage of the letter had "misinterpreted" the results of the probe concerning obstruction of justice.
Cry me a river Mr. Mueller.
clipe
clipe
Mueller was offered opportunity to review Barr transmit to Congress; he declined. Instead he signed off on an ex-post-facto (griping)letter, released on the eve of Barr’s testimony.
Looks like Mrs Barr + Mrs Mueller have been talking at their bible meetings - Mueller has apparently been pushing Nadler to get him on the stand to give his opinions.... again apparently ... it's being reported in several places that Mueller mebbe thinks Pelosi's overdone the calling Barr a liar thing.... Easy to think that Mueller is seeing control slip away ?
tomo
The 2016 POTUS election seems a long time ago ... but let's remember that 65 US MSM reporters are listed in Wikileaks documents as taking instruction / placing articles at the behest of the Clinton campaign.
They didn't loose their jobs, and they are still tipping poison into everyday life.
tomo
Mueller found no collusion b/w Trump campaign & Russia.
That means 1 of 2 things:
EITHER Steele lied to FBI re Russian intel
OR Russia interfered w/ election by feeding Steele fake intel.
Mueller addressed neither scenario in report.
Since now apparently Mueller is going to testify to Congress (tentatively 15th May) one wonders how the Democrat are going to block him being actually asked about this ? - Turn the microphones off again?
tomo
"Mueller addressed neither scenario in report.
May 6, 2019 at 4:28 PM | tomo"
You would need to check the actual wording of Mueller's original Terms of Reference/Instruction, but he was only expected to find evidence of Trump's guilt, and he didn't.
He was never asked to establish or prove whodunnit or why.
golf charlie
By Victor Davis Hanson| May 5th, 2019
That trick worked out well, since his friend Robert Mueller was soon appointed special counsel amid the general Russian “collusion” hysteria that Comey himself had long ago helped ignite. If any lower echelon employee had leaked in a similar manner to Comey, he would face an array of felony indictments.
clipe
You would need to check the actual wording of Mueller's original Terms of Reference/Instruction, but he was only expected to find evidence of Trump's guilt, and he didn't.He was never asked to establish or prove whodunnit or why.
(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.
(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including: (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.
What is Mueller investigating?
The authorization given by Rosenstein is broad and vague, which allows Mueller to investigate anything he wants under the guise that it is a "link" or "coordination."
clipe
GFY.
May 2, 2019 at 7:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke
GPY. Go Phil yourself.
You know where.
clipe
May 7, 2019 at 2:18 AM | clipe
Mueller dragged it out for as long as he could.
If asked by Democrats, Mueller could explain that he had investigated the fake evidence they planted and supplemented with fake news.
golf charlie
Constraining the questions to Mueller must be a subject that is now vexing the Democrats re his appearance before the judiciary committee.
Given past antics it's likely to be a real shit show - and quite likely a turning point in the whole affair. I don't have a great amount of confidence that the correct questions will be asked.
It's fairly clear that chairman Nadler will deploy any tactic he believes he can get away with to block anything but what he wants to hear....
tomo
May 7, 2019 at 11:40 AM | tomo
I think there are lots of obvious questions that won't be asked. Democrats will then cover themselves by confirming that they have restricted themselves to questions about the finer details of Trump's affairs, and seek clarifications from Mueller.
golf charlie
I wonder if 'doze 'wikkid 'wushinz will blow the dust off their trove of HRC emails?
I think it a bluff and reckon that if anybody has them it's Beijing.
gc
Watching more Nadler on the House Judiciary Committee than is likely healthy - I'd bet that he's going to pull every stunt in his considerable repertoire to avoid any awkward questions - that said - fumbling the ball is something that US congresspersons and senators seem incredibly good at when it's important that they don't...... .
tomo
@RR
I notice in my random dips into Radio 4 in the last week the BBC has actually been running some "McCarthyism and the victims of McCarthy" trailers ... setting the stage one must assume for some of their chums and associates being unfairly indicted in the USA?
The Russians are well aware of how American politics works and in addition to Bezemov's categorisation the Kremlin's spooks cultivated "agents of influence". The crown jewels of 1930s + 1940s Soviet penetration of Democrat ranks was I believe Harry Hopkins (known as Mr Roosevelt's"assistant President") whose antics included providing A-bomb material directly to Stalin from directly under the nose of the famously hard-assed General Leslie Groves ( look for Major Racey-Jordan) . The whole matter was so embarrassing that to this day it doesn't get much attention.