Justice Department preparing for Mueller report as early as next week (1 Viewer)

[bubbabgone]

Washington (CNN)Attorney General Bill Barr is preparing to announce as early as next week the completion of Robert Mueller's Russia investigation, with plans for Barr to submit to Congress soon after a summary of Mueller's confidential report, according to people familiar with the plans.
...
Barr has said that he wants to be as "transparent" as possible with Congress and the public, "consistent with the rules and the law."
Under the special counsel regulations, Mueller must submit a "confidential" report to the attorney general at the conclusion of his work, but the rules don't require it to be shared with Congress, or by extension, the public. And, as Barr has made clear, the Justice Department generally guards against publicizing "derogatory" information about uncharged individuals.
Justice Department preparing for Mueller report as early as next week - CNNPolitics

Well, ladies and gentlemen, combine that with Clapper's statement ( Mueller report may be ‘anti-climactic,' says ex-intelligence director | TheHill ) that

He said he was hopeful the Mueller probe will provide some answers, but warned it might not even draw a conclusion on whether there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow.
"I think the hope is that the Mueller investigation will clear the air on this issue once and for all. I'm really not sure it will, and the investigation, when completed, could turn out to be quite anti-climactic and not draw a conclusion about that" Clapper said Wednesday on CNN.

and what we have is a signal to prepare yourselves to either say "See ... there was nothing" or "He's guilty ... they just didn't have enough proof"

Round and round we'll still go ... but we already knew that, didn't we?

 

[ClaraD]

Well, ladies and gentlemen, combine that with Clapper's statement ( Mueller report may be ‘anti-climactic,' says ex-intelligence director | TheHill ) that



and what we have is a signal to prepare yourselves to either say "See ... there was nothing" or "He's guilty ... they just didn't have enough proof"

Round and round we'll still go ... but we already knew that, didn't we?

I have yet to see what the report says. I suspect that the secrecy of Mueller is so that he could finish his work. I don't know that the report will come next week, but I sure believe that Trump is all up in arms about something...

 

[Verax]

Big question. How much are we going to see? With Barr acting as a filter I have my doubts we're going to know the whole truth any time soon.

 

[joko104]

Big question. How much are we going to see? With Barr acting as a filter I have my doubts we're going to know the whole truth any time soon.

Already bolstering against the prospect that the 100 billion words by nearly all Democrats certain that Mueller will have President Trump and his entire family indicted as Russian agents might not pan out after all?

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Well, ladies and gentlemen, combine that with Clapper's statement ( Mueller report may be ‘anti-climactic,' says ex-intelligence director | TheHill ) that



and what we have is a signal to prepare yourselves to either say "See ... there was nothing" or "He's guilty ... they just didn't have enough proof"

Round and round we'll still go ... but we already knew that, didn't we?

You have quite the active imagination.

The conclusory report is not coming next week

 

[joko104]

I wonder if the love orgy of Mueller by the Democratic Party will turn to a hate fest with the report - the way their hate fest of Comey turned into a love affair?

 

[Born Free]

Well, ladies and gentlemen, combine that with Clapper's statement ( Mueller report may be ‘anti-climactic,' says ex-intelligence director | TheHill ) that



and what we have is a signal to prepare yourselves to either say "See ... there was nothing" or "He's guilty ... they just didn't have enough proof"

Round and round we'll still go ... but we already knew that, didn't we?

How can Trump be guilty without proof? Without proof of a crime, there is no crime. Except for you liberals that want Trump killed no matter what. Just like you believed those woman that accused Kav of sexual assault without one piece of evidence to corroborate their claims. You love your mob rule, he's guilty hang that bastard. However Kav is now a SCJ in spite of their baseless claims.

 

[NeverTrump]

Well, ladies and gentlemen, combine that with Clapper's statement ( Mueller report may be ‘anti-climactic,' says ex-intelligence director | TheHill ) that



and what we have is a signal to prepare yourselves to either say "See ... there was nothing" or "He's guilty ... they just didn't have enough proof"

Round and round we'll still go ... but we already knew that, didn't we?

I agree w/McCabe, the Mueller report better stay in the news at least a week, it should be a month or more. Considering what these ex-intelligence agents are saying. It's like the report will prove without a doubt that Trump is a Russian Asset.

 

[ludin]

Well, ladies and gentlemen, combine that with Clapper's statement ( Mueller report may be ‘anti-climactic,' says ex-intelligence director | TheHill ) that



and what we have is a signal to prepare yourselves to either say "See ... there was nothing" or "He's guilty ... they just didn't have enough proof"

Round and round we'll still go ... but we already knew that, didn't we?

i need a ton of popcorn for next week is what i need when i see every TDS'er out there's head explode.

it is going to look like this.



starts at :55

it is going to be hilarious

 

[VanceMack]

Good. Lets finally see the fruits of what happens when you allow a team of investigators to violate the Constitution and act like the Gestapo investigating every aspect of peoples lives without probable cause. Enough already.

If there is an allegation of Collusion between Trump and Russia...lets have it. And if not, Trump should pardon every single person those corrupt ****s indicted.

 

[polgara]

Well, ladies and gentlemen, combine that with Clapper's statement ( Mueller report may be ‘anti-climactic,' says ex-intelligence director | TheHill ) that



and what we have is a signal to prepare yourselves to either say "See ... there was nothing" or "He's guilty ... they just didn't have enough proof"

Round and round we'll still go ... but we already knew that, didn't we?

Greetings, bubba. :2wave:

:thumbs: . :mrgreen: I wonder what's next on the agenda....

 

[Cardinal]

Trump's toady is installed and Mueller's report is instantaneously due.

This has got to be the single most corrupt era in American history.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Trump's toady is installed and Mueller's report is instantaneously due.

This has got to be the single most corrupt era in American history.

I dunno. This makes sense, though: emptywheel on Twitter: "I also don't think this is Barr shutting this down. I think it is Mueller waiting until Barr is in place.

If they were moving files LAST WEEK that was before Barr was confirmed."

 

[Cardinal]

I dunno. This makes sense, though: emptywheel on Twitter: "I also don't think this is Barr shutting this down. I think it is Mueller waiting until Barr is in place.

If they were moving files LAST WEEK that was before Barr was confirmed."

The only way we'll know that everything is legit is if the report concludes impeachable offenses.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

The only way we'll know that everything is legit is if the report concludes impeachable offenses.

It's hard to fathom that Barr and Mueller are good friends, given Barr's rather idiotic ideas about the law, mass incarcerations, presidential power, etc... but it this is true it clearly shows that there's a good chance it all comes out.

 

[ludin]

Good. Lets finally see the fruits of what happens when you allow a team of investigators to violate the Constitution and act like the Gestapo investigating every aspect of peoples lives without probable cause. Enough already.

If there is an allegation of Collusion between Trump and Russia...lets have it. And if not, Trump should pardon every single person those corrupt ****s indicted.

no because they committed crimes unrelated to russia.

sorry but money laundering is money laundering and lying is lying no matter what.

that is the issue though none of these people have been indicted over russia collusion or election interference.

they have all been indicted on things unrelated.

 

[Moon]

Big question. How much are we going to see? With Barr acting as a filter I have my doubts we're going to know the whole truth any time soon.

We the public? No telling, but likely less than a lot of people will want to see. Even though the regulations don’t require a report to Congress, I don’t think there’s any way for Barr to avoid that. If so, there will undoubtedly be leaks.

 

[Lutherf]

Well, ladies and gentlemen, combine that with Clapper's statement ( Mueller report may be ‘anti-climactic,' says ex-intelligence director | TheHill ) that



and what we have is a signal to prepare yourselves to either say "See ... there was nothing" or "He's guilty ... they just didn't have enough proof"

Round and round we'll still go ... but we already knew that, didn't we?

I'm guessing that the end result will be that Trump was found to be a Russian spy as early as 2012 and that this plot to overthrow Clinton involved Trump, Ted Cruz, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Boris Bananov.

 

[ludin]

The only way we'll know that everything is legit is if the report concludes impeachable offenses.

so you won't accept the report unless mueller convicts him huh?
lmao. head explosions coming.

 

[ludin]

We the public? No telling, but likely less than a lot of people will want to see. Even though the regulations don’t require a report to Congress, I don’t think there’s any way for Barr to avoid that. If so, there will undoubtedly be leaks.

They can't leak the report. if they do then it will be a crime and can be punished.
Barr can send what bar wants to send to congress.

however the report is still considered classified.

 

[VanceMack]

no because they committed crimes unrelated to russia.

sorry but money laundering is money laundering and lying is lying no matter what.

that is the issue though none of these people have been indicted over russia collusion or election interference.

they have all been indicted on things unrelated.

What part of the Constitution gives law enforcement the authority to attack the lives of anyone you know to dig up evidence of a crime that you would not have had previous probably cause to investigate, and how the **** do you justify that kind of Gestapo tactics, and when you endorse it for others are you going to be just fine when that kind of **** happens to you?

 

[Mach]

no because they committed crimes unrelated to russia.
sorry but money laundering is money laundering and lying is lying no matter what.
that is the issue though none of these people have been indicted over russia collusion or election interference.
they have all been indicted on things unrelated.

Stones current case is officially listed as related to the Russian conspiracy/hacking case.

Stone just tried to argue in court that his indictment is unrelated to Russia/ties to Trump campaign.
Mueller cites two primary reasons - the Russian stolen emails are the topic in both, and that warrants from the Russian hacker "raid" resulted in evidence relevant to this Stone case.
The judge agreed, the roger stone Indictment remains listed with the related case being :
case 1:18-cr-00215-ABJ (the Russian conspiracy indictment/hackers)

In Manafort's case, much of it was redacted. When one bit was accidentally unredacted by Manafort's crack team, we learned that it involved Manafort giving polling data to a Russian with ties to Russian intelligence (KK).
Similar to Stone, the same Judge overseeing Mueller's Stone work, oversaw that portion of Manafort's case. Much of it is still not known to the public. The other judge with access to some of those redactions, asked about "Treason", so I think that raises eyebrows about what is under the redaction, consistent with this discussion.

Manafort and Stone both appear to not be taking their prosecution seriously, and have apparently intentionally done numerous things to receive harsher judgement in their obviously guilty cases (stone TBD, Manafort is cooked). It was even reported that from legal sources with knowledge of Stone's strategy, that they are simply expecting a pardon. It fits history, Trump, and their behavior.

So while I hope you're right, that he will let them face justice, it's my #1 concern that he will pardon them. That they stonewalled sufficient to shield he president, and he will reward them with a pardon. Nice and tidy...the old "take one for the team", followed up with a "get out of jail free" card.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Well, ladies and gentlemen, combine that with Clapper's statement ( Mueller report may be ‘anti-climactic,' says ex-intelligence director | TheHill ) that



and what we have is a signal to prepare yourselves to either say "See ... there was nothing" or "He's guilty ... they just didn't have enough proof"

Round and round we'll still go ... but we already knew that, didn't we?

He also said this:

Clapper, a frequent critic of Trump's, said people in the intelligence community see a strange deference on the president's part toward Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“The strange thing I think that has bothered a lot of people both in and out of the intelligence community is this strange personal deference to Putin by the president. I’ve speculated in the past that the way Putin behaves is to treat President Trump as an asset,” Clapper said Wednesday.

He added that if Trump were indeed advancing Putin’s interests, he would more likely be doing so unwittingly.

He's clearly echoing McCabe's concerns about the President while underscoring the general consensus that Trump isn't all that bright. Doubt that Barr has been brought fully up to speed yet on all the investigations opened by the Special Counsel as some of them I'm are sure quite complex.

 

[humbolt]

I feel as if I'm about to lose a, a, I dunno - a toilet bowl brush.

 

[ludin]

What part of the Constitution gives law enforcement the authority to attack the lives of anyone you know to dig up evidence of a crime that you would not have had previous probably cause to investigate, and how the **** do you justify that kind of Gestapo tactics, and when you endorse it for others are you going to be just fine when that kind of **** happens to you?

If the police are looking at something that you did and find a bloody knife even if it isn't related to the initial search they can bring in new charges.
the fact is that they were looking at a crime and found other related crimes. it happens all the time.

the only thing that protects you is unreasonable searches. if they are looking at one thing and find something else there is nothing unconstitutional about it.

it is not different than a criminal getting pulled over for a traffic stop and then getting busted on a warrant or busted for having drugs in the car.