Mueller report summary sent to Congress

[Linc]

JFK rule???

There was a JFK disclosure law in 1992 but some of it is still secret.

We’ll never know everything about this extended trump organization at our ages, let alone all the rest of our nation’s secrets. #45 knows them though.

 

[Chomsky]

Indicting him or subpoenaing him? I heard the latter.

Mueller? He should be requested to appear voluntarily. At least for the initial request.

Edit: Oops! Sorry. Yeah, it might have been subpoena. Mueller should have done it. He would have won.

 

[PLizzy]

Mueller? He should be requested to appear voluntarily. At least for the initial request,

You said Mueller really considered indicting Trump, where did you hear that?

 

[Chomsky]

If it was Mueller's opinion that there was obstruction then he should have acted on it. But he did not and Barr ruled with Muller there was no evidence to warrant any action.



What you want you probably will not get. Barr will follow the laws imposed upon him, I've never seen a full unredacted report of this nature ever being released. Maybe you have but I don't think one exist. Even if Barr is in front of congress he has a bunch of "I can't discuss that as there are ongoing investigations. We've all seen this same thing time and time again.

That's fair. Obviously, I was speaking of a redacted report being released.

 

[Chomsky]

Rosenstein will soon resign, go straight to reporters, and state “it’s a lie, I never agreed with that, Barr made that decision all on his own, over my objections.”

Well, Rosentein will soon retire. But yeah, what you claim is possible of course.

 

[Chomsky]

You said Mueller really considered indicting Trump, where did you hear that?

I misunderstood your post, and edited mine after you quoted it here.

I think I was in error, it was a discussion about a subpoena.

 

[PLizzy]

Mueller? He should be requested to appear voluntarily. At least for the initial request.

Edit: Oops! Sorry. Yeah, it might have been subpoena. Mueller should have done it. He would have won.

Mueller wanted to show respect to the institution and not create a public spectacle like Starr. I'd guess that Mueller was told the Trump family would take the fifth, which rendered a subpoena pointless.

 

[PLizzy]

I misunderstood your post, and edited mine after you quoted it here.

I think I was in error, it was a discussion about a subpoena.

Beat you to it. :2razz:

 

[Chomsky]

Mueller wanted to show respect to the institution and not create a public spectacle like Starr. I'd guess that Mueller was told the Trump family would take the fifth, which rendered a subpoena pointless.

No it wouldn't. SCOTUS ruled against Clinton, and set precedent. Sitting Presidents indeed are liable to subpoena. Indictment hasn't been constitutionally resolved, but subpoena has.

Why wouldn't they subpoena him?

 

[PLizzy]

No it wouldn't. SCOTUS ruled against Clinton, and set precedent. Sitting Presidents indeed are liable to subpoena. Indictment hasn't been constitutionally resolved, but subpoena has.

Why wouldn't they subpoena him?

If he takes the fifth, there's no point.

 

[Linc]

If he takes the fifth, there's no point.

What has Donald previously said about people taking the fifth?

 

[Mach]

Rational people don't care whether he is repulsive.

The very definition of lack of ethics.

We do not care about his behavior, as long as he gives us what we think we want. That's called corrupt joko.
You have to care about the behavior based on the behavior, not about what you get in return for it (that's like bribery...look the other way because you get a payoff).

Try electing a Republican who isn't a dumpster fire, and who is still "not a democrat". How the **** hard can that be?

 

[Chomsky]

If he takes the fifth, there's no point.

I dunno'. I think it should have been done.

It would have been done to average citizen Joe Blow. So why not Trump? I'm getting tired of two-tiered justice. I would've preferred it done, and let the political cards fall where they may.

 

[SkyFox76]

2 Trump appointees, Barr & Rosenstein, decided that there was no obstruction. You on board with that??

Well they had plenty of time to make the decision. Got the report on Friday evening, and by Sunday afternoon they had made their decision. Clearly some deep thought went into it and nobody would even think to question it. :happy:

 

[Linc]

Yes, I'm eager for those polls too, particularly the Indies.

The polls will indicate righties back-pedaling on seeing the Mueller Report, let alone hearing from Mueller. They’re fine hiding behind Barr.

 

[The Mark]

Which means no proof of a crime. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

Oh, indeed.

As I think was stated in the summary, there was no evidence found worthy of bringing an indictment or anything of that sort.

 

[PLizzy]

I dunno'. I think it should have been done.

It would have been done to average citizen Joe Blow. So why not Trump? I'm getting tired of two-tiered justice. I would've preferred it done, and let the political cards fall where they may.

Fair enough.

 

[Bullseye]

Mueller said, "Presidents can't obstruct"? I read it, and didn't see it.

And remember, all we've got is Barr's opinion and his choosing of excerpts to bolster his opinion. This is a far cry from seeing Mueller's report, or hearing directly from him (Mueller). Hopefully, we'll soon get both.

Barr reports numerous contacts and consultations between Mueller and DOJ.


So, let me pose a question to you. You seem to be implying that Barr may be spinning this to back the President, does it then follow that Holder and Lynn may have spun their reactions in various situations to support their current President - Obama. To me Barr's comments on the obstruction issue seems pretty clear.

 

[Chomsky]

Barr reports numerous contacts and consultations between Mueller and DOJ.


So, let me pose a question to you. You seem to be implying that Barr may be spinning this to back the President, does it then follow that Holder and Lynn may have spun their reactions in various situations to support their current President - Obama. To me Barr's comments on the obstruction issue seems pretty clear.

I really don't know in either case here, but I am wary of Barr's belief that President's can't obstruct. So, I'd prefer to hear the report from the horse's mouth: Mueller.

 

[Bullseye]

I really don't know in either case here, but I am wary of Barr's belief that President's can't obstruct. So, I'd prefer to hear the report from the horse's mouth: Mueller.

I'm not sure that's what Barr is really saying. I understand that Mueller essentially deferred from judgment on that issue and Barr, after consulting his experts is unable to see a case there.

 

[apdst]

Oh, indeed.

As I think was stated in the summary, there was no evidence found worthy of bringing an indictment or anything of that sort.

Innocent until proven guilty, baby.

 

[Athanasius68]

Possible. But we don't know. It's now being reported that Mueller met with Rosenstein to discuss the possibility of indicting Trump, but they declined.

Like I earlier stated, we need to see the report and hear from Mueller in order to put this to bed.

At this point, those who are fighting to cling to the conspiracy narrative have seriously diminished credibility.
Sorry to put it that way, but it's true.

I agree that the Mueller report needs to be released. But since there was no evidence to support the claimthat Russia and Trump conspired to fix the 2016 election, we also need to know the rationale for the Obama Admin to take the step of surveilling its political opponents.

 

[Chomsky]

At this point, those who are fighting to cling to the conspiracy narrative have seriously diminished credibility.
Sorry to put it that way, but it's true.

I agree that the Mueller report needs to be released. But since there was no evidence to support the claimthat Russia and Trump conspired to fix the 2016 election, we also need to know the rationale for the Obama Admin to take the step of surveilling its political opponents.

The bar for reasonable cause to investigate, is much lower than the bar to convict; just thought I'd point that out.

 

[Athanasius68]

Mueller didn't "say there's no there, there", that's Barr's opinion.

I want to see Mueller's report, and hear his decision process, not read the opinion of Trump's appointee with his selected excerpts.

Mueller had been saying there is no there there for the past two years. He had issued no indictments for conspiracy to fix the 2016 election. That reality is consistent with the summary put out today by Barr.

 

[Chomsky]

Mueller had been saying there is no there there for the past two years. He had issued no indictments for conspiracy to fix the 2016 election. That reality is consistent with the summary put out today by Barr.

That's a fair and reasonable response. But has nothing to do with the public wanting and needing to see the document.