Barr a Fraud - Mueller Objected to Conclusion

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
17,475
Reaction score
144
Points
63
Who'd have guessed that Trump's lackey simply attempted to bury the report with a fraudulent summary. They never really planned on releasing the entire report. Turns out that Mueller sent a letter to Barr objecting to the conclusions that he came to.

The special counsel Robert Mueller wrote a letter to Attorney General William Barr last month objecting to his conclusion that President Donald Trump did not obstruct justice in the Russia investigation, according to The New York Times.

Mueller's team said in its final report that it would decline to make a "traditional prosecutorial judgment" on the question of obstruction, citing Justice Department guidelines that say a sitting president cannot be indicted.

But prosecutors laid out a mountain of evidence they had collected in the obstruction probe — including 11 possible instances of obstruction — and indicated Congress could further investigate.

Barr, however, sent a letter to Congress before the report was released and told lawmakers he had decided there was not enough evidence to charge Trump with an obstruction offense.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The special counsel Robert Mueller wrote a letter to Attorney General William Barr last month objecting to his conclusion that President Donald Trump did not obstruct justice in the Russia investigation, The New York Times reported.

In their final report in the investigation, Mueller's team wrote that they declined to make a "traditional prosecutorial judgment" on whether the president sought to thwart the Russia inquiry.

But they emphasized that this finding "does not exonerate" Trump.

Mueller's team added that they would not draw a conclusion on the question of obstruction because they were constrained by current DOJ policy that states a sitting president cannot be indicted.

But prosecutors laid out an extensive roadmap of all the evidence they had collected in the investigation, which included 11 possible instances of obstruction of justice by the president.

"The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred," prosecutors wrote. "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment."

Mueller's team also indicated that it believed Congress would be well suited to investigate the question of obstruction using the evidence laid out in the final report.

Before the report was released to Congress and the public, however, Barr sent a four-page letter summarizing his "principal conclusions" of Mueller's investigation to lawmakers.

In it, the attorney general said prosecutors "did not establish" that a conspiracy took place between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

Barr also said that while Mueller's team did not come to a conclusion on whether Trump obstructed justice, he had consulted with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and determined there was not enough evidence to criminally charge the president with an obstruction offense.
https://www.businessinsider.com/mueller-objected-to-barr-obstruction-finding-in-march-letter-nyt-2019-4
 

jamiche

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
20,020
Reaction score
93
Points
48

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
20,259
Reaction score
110
Points
63
Mueller was offered, but declined, to review the four page letter Barr wrote, which would have avoided this alleged issue. Let that sink in for a minute.

Still, this is all an intentional misrepresentation of what Mueller said. From the article:

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

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
17,475
Reaction score
144
Points
63
Mueller was offered, but declined, to review the four page letter Barr wrote, which would have avoided this alleged issue. Let that sink in for a minute.

Still, this is all an intentional misrepresentation of what Mueller said. From the article:

"In a cordial and professional conversation, the Special Counsel emphasized that nothing in the Attorney General's March 24 letter was inaccurate is misleading. But, he expressed frustration over the lack of context and the resulting media coverage regarding the Special Counsel s obstruction analysis."
You dillhole...that's wording from the DOJ. The fact is....Barr released the letter without approval. He's in deep trouble. You cannot misrepresent something that badly as an acting attorney and survive. LOL!
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
20,259
Reaction score
110
Points
63
You dillhole...that's wording from the DOJ. The fact is....Barr released the letter without approval. He's in deep trouble. You cannot misrepresent something that badly as an acting attorney and survive. LOL!
Why did he decline to review it prior to it's release, as offered? :rolleyes:

Not going to work. The Mueller report is final. No collusion. No obstruction. America is moving on.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
17,475
Reaction score
144
Points
63
Why did he decline to review it prior to it's release, as offered? :rolleyes:

Not going to work. The Mueller report is final. No collusion. No obstruction. America is moving on.
I guess you are being purposely dense. This was a letter sent PRIOR to the release of the report. This is NEW info. Guess non-fake news doesn't penetrate that tinfoil hat of yours.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
38,895
Reaction score
658
Points
113
Who'd have guessed that Trump's lackey simply attempted to bury the report with a fraudulent summary. They never really planned on releasing the entire report. Turns out that Mueller sent a letter to Barr objecting to the conclusions that he came to.



https://www.businessinsider.com/mueller-objected-to-barr-obstruction-finding-in-march-letter-nyt-2019-4
Of course. Anyone who read the report could see that Barr shamelessly lied for 4 weeks to give Trump cover. The only question is why it took Mueller this long to call him out.
 

diehard

Active member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
31,544
Reaction score
12
Points
38
You dillhole...that's wording from the DOJ. The fact is....Barr released the letter without approval. He's in deep trouble. You cannot misrepresent something that badly as an acting attorney and survive. LOL!
From MSN: "When Barr pressed Mueller on whether he thought Barr’s memo to Congress was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not but felt that the media coverage of it was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said."

Well there ya go. You can't even figure out corporate taxes or find classes at the U. No one in their right mind would ever hire you for a serious job.
 
Last edited:

jamiche

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
20,020
Reaction score
93
Points
48
Craig and charter school are hanging on for dear life to the Trump DOJ characterization of the follow up phone call between the guys. That's as credible as the rest of craig's fantasies.
 

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
15,380
Reaction score
335
Points
83
So, when Barr testified on 4/10 that he didn't know whether Mueller supported his conclusion, that was after Mueller's objections in his 3/27 letter. That used to be known as perjury and would get you into jail. Now it's a non story, which I guess I recognize, but there can't be any question why some of us would like to restore the rule of law around here.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
11,748
Reaction score
95
Points
48
From MSN: "When Barr pressed Mueller on whether he thought Barr’s memo to Congress was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not but felt that the media coverage of it was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said."

Well there ya go. You can't even figure out corporate taxes or find classes at the U. No one in their right mind would ever hire you for a serious job.
The Dem's motto is: That’s our story and we’re sticking to it.
 

Gophers_4life

Active member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
6,215
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Truth hasn’t mattered since 2015 or so.

They’re going to vote for Trump and there is literally nothing that can happen that would cause otherwise. They’re very happy to make up their own truth and believe in it, no matter what.

Belief without proof, is an extremely powerful fallacy of the human mind.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
11,748
Reaction score
95
Points
48
Truth hasn’t mattered since 2015 or so.

They’re going to vote for Trump and there is literally nothing that can happen that would cause otherwise. They’re very happy to make up their own truth and believe in it, no matter what.

Belief without proof, is an extremely powerful fallacy of the human mind.
Funny, that’s exactly what most people believe about the Democrats delusions about Trump.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
37,633
Reaction score
480
Points
83
So, when Barr testified on 4/10 that he didn't know whether Mueller supported his conclusion, that was after Mueller's objections in his 3/27 letter. That used to be known as perjury and would get you into jail. Now it's a non story, which I guess I recognize, but there can't be any question why some of us would like to restore the rule of law around here.
Your post would be a great discovery if it had any root in truth. But it has none. Read DH and CRG above. Mueller agrees that Barr's statements are correct. Mueller is concerned that media coverage is incorrect and will lead to wrong public conclusions about his report. You got duped again. What you fail to realize is that the media has two things to gain by a ruse like this: 1. money- people read it 2. This is cover for the media who has run fake news for two years
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
37,633
Reaction score
480
Points
83
Mueller did solidify his position as a leaking, political operative:

“Mueller complained to Barr about memo on key findings.” That’s the banner headline at the top of the Washington Post’s website Wednesday. But when you click your way to the actual story, it turns out that the headline is not true. Special Counsel Mueller’s complaint, which targeted Attorney General Barr’s March 24 letter explaining the report, is not about the “key findings.” It’s about the narrative.

Mueller’s complaint is that Barr “did not fully capture the context” of Mueller’s magnum opus – the “nature and substance” of the report.This complaint was set forth in Mueller’s own letter, dated March 27. The letter is a microcosm of Mueller’s collusion probe: sound and fury, signifying nothing; an investigative process predicated on no criminal conduct, which generated crimes rather than solving one.

Parsed carefully (which you have to do with the special counsel’s Jesuitical work), Mueller is precisely not saying that Barr misrepresented his key findings. He is saying that he and the Clinton/Obama minions he recruited to staff the case wrote the report with a certain mood music in mind. To their chagrin, Barr gave us just the no-crime bottom line. Mueller would have preferred for us to feel all the ooze of un-presidential escapades he couldn’t indict but wouldn’t, from his lofty perch, “exonerate.”

The purportedly private letter to Barr, like Mueller’s purportedly confidential report, was patently meant for public consumption, and thus leaked to the Post late yesterday. The timing is transparently strategic: the leak drops a bomb as Barr was preparing for two days of what promises to be combative congressional hearings, starting this morning; it give maximum media exposure to Mueller’s diva routine and its Democratic chorus, while the attorney general gets minimal time to respond to asinine cries of that he should be charged with perjury, held in contempt, and – of course – impeached.


https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/andrew-mccarthy-mueller-letter-barr-report-washington-post
 
Last edited:

jamiche

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
20,020
Reaction score
93
Points
48
Your post would be a great discovery if it had any root in truth. But it has none. Read DH and CRG above. Mueller agrees that Barr's statements are correct. Mueller is concerned that media coverage is incorrect and will lead to wrong public conclusions about his report. You got duped again. What you fail to realize is that the media has two things to gain by a ruse like this: 1. money- people read it 2. This is cover for the media who has run fake news for two years
As previously stated, humble beggar, craig and charter school got their woodies over a justice department spokesperson's characterization of a phone call between Barr and Mueller. That has the same credibility as your accusation that Hillary had Seth Rich whacked.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
17,475
Reaction score
144
Points
63
From MSN: "When Barr pressed Mueller on whether he thought Barr’s memo to Congress was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not but felt that the media coverage of it was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said."

Well there ya go. You can't even figure out corporate taxes or find classes at the U. No one in their right mind would ever hire you for a serious job.
Wrong, braindead. You are missing the picture. There was a letter PRIOR to the report release stating that the memo was a poor representation of the full report. Not that it was a lie.

Take your meds and change your depends.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
17,475
Reaction score
144
Points
63
Mueller did solidify his position as a leaking, political operative:

“Mueller complained to Barr about memo on key findings.” That’s the banner headline at the top of the Washington Post’s website Wednesday. But when you click your way to the actual story, it turns out that the headline is not true. Special Counsel Mueller’s complaint, which targeted Attorney General Barr’s March 24 letter explaining the report, is not about the “key findings.” It’s about the narrative.

Mueller’s complaint is that Barr “did not fully capture the context” of Mueller’s magnum opus – the “nature and substance” of the report.This complaint was set forth in Mueller’s own letter, dated March 27. The letter is a microcosm of Mueller’s collusion probe: sound and fury, signifying nothing; an investigative process predicated on no criminal conduct, which generated crimes rather than solving one.

Parsed carefully (which you have to do with the special counsel’s Jesuitical work), Mueller is precisely not saying that Barr misrepresented his key findings. He is saying that he and the Clinton/Obama minions he recruited to staff the case wrote the report with a certain mood music in mind. To their chagrin, Barr gave us just the no-crime bottom line. Mueller would have preferred for us to feel all the ooze of un-presidential escapades he couldn’t indict but wouldn’t, from his lofty perch, “exonerate.”

The purportedly private letter to Barr, like Mueller’s purportedly confidential report, was patently meant for public consumption, and thus leaked to the Post late yesterday. The timing is transparently strategic: the leak drops a bomb as Barr was preparing for two days of what promises to be combative congressional hearings, starting this morning; it give maximum media exposure to Mueller’s diva routine and its Democratic chorus, while the attorney general gets minimal time to respond to asinine cries of that he should be charged with perjury, held in contempt, and – of course – impeached.


https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/andrew-mccarthy-mueller-letter-barr-report-washington-post
HAHAHA! So fake news network added their spin to the story? WRONG!

Mueller was upset that the memo was an extremely biased representation of the report. No lies told. But it was spin. Barr should have no problem producing the letter (AS REQUESTED) sent by Mueller in your case. And that should prove that Mueller either believed it was a poor representation of his report....or that the memo didn't "set the right mood". LOL.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
15,380
Reaction score
335
Points
83
Your post would be a great discovery if it had any root in truth. But it has none. Read DH and CRG above. Mueller agrees that Barr's statements are correct. Mueller is concerned that media coverage is incorrect and will lead to wrong public conclusions about his report. You got duped again. What you fail to realize is that the media has two things to gain by a ruse like this: 1. money- people read it 2. This is cover for the media who has run fake news for two years
Even if what you say is true, perjury is perjury.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
11,748
Reaction score
95
Points
48
In testimony, Barr just said that their decision about obstruction examined each of the 10 episodes discussed in the report and determined that none of them would constitute obstruction as a matter of law based on the analytical framework set forth by the Special Counsel.

Sorry howie, it wasn’t b/c the President can’t be indicted.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
37,633
Reaction score
480
Points
83
In testimony, Barr just said that their decision about obstruction examined each of the 10 episodes discussed in the report and determined that none of them would constitute obstruction as a matter of law based on the analytical framework set forth by the Special Counsel.

Sorry howie, it wasn’t b/c the President can’t be indicted.
The more the Dems fight this, the worse it is going to get for them.
 

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
15,380
Reaction score
335
Points
83
Perjury is perjury, I think we can all agree on that. Is there a point here?
The point here is that it's not perjury in this case because of who did it. Just like Michelle Obama called an ape for wearing a sleeveless dress while the First Skank was a nude model, and that's OK.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
37,633
Reaction score
480
Points
83
Agree. The more we learn from Barr and Mueller, the more the post-Mueller report lefty theories blow up.
The problem they have is twofold: 1. They lost 2. It is going to get worse and they know it. The current attempt at theater is the hope of running the clock and getting the public to become increasingly confused and tired of hearing about this whole thing. After all they know that they were able to run the clock out on past Obama scandals. It won't work this time. Lynch or Holder are no long the AG....
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
38,895
Reaction score
658
Points
113
So, when Barr testified on 4/10 that he didn't know whether Mueller supported his conclusion, that was after Mueller's objections in his 3/27 letter. That used to be known as perjury and would get you into jail. Now it's a non story, which I guess I recognize, but there can't be any question why some of us would like to restore the rule of law around here.
Yet some say we shouldn't even discuss it and focus only on the election.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
38,895
Reaction score
658
Points
113
In testimony, Barr just said that their decision about obstruction examined each of the 10 episodes discussed in the report and determined that none of them would constitute obstruction as a matter of law based on the analytical framework set forth by the Special Counsel.

Sorry howie, it wasn’t b/c the President can’t be indicted.
BS. Barr determined that because he believes a President can't commit obstruction.

Mueller clearly felt bound by the DOJ policy that you can't indict the President and left it for Congress. In the report he clearly said so. He also said if they felt the President was cleared of obstruction they would say so, but they could not say that. Stop lying.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
38,895
Reaction score
658
Points
113
Perjury is perjury, I think we can all agree on that. Is there a point here?
Yes. When Barr told Congress he had "no idea" how Mueller felt about his summary on April 10th, he was lying and perjured himself.
 
Top Bottom