• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Some on Mueller’s Team See Their Findings as More Damaging for Trump Than Barr Revealed

HumblePi said:
The opinions aren't those of the NYT, the opinions are those of the lawyers that worked on the special counsel team.
Click to expand...

No, they are the opinions of associates of lawyers that worked on the special counsel team. You are being duped all over again.
 
veritas1 said:
Mueller hasn't claimed this but anonymous sources on the team (ie. Democrat donors and Hill associates) claim otherwise. Who you gonna believe?:lol:
Click to expand...

It's funny that you seem to know all the attorneys that worked on the team of the special counsel's investigation. Please tell us, who are they? I'd like to know who they are so I could check their 'political affiliation'. Of course that's stupid. These people are not political hacks like your republican sycophantic traitors. These are experienced apolitical career attorneys.
 
Fletch said:
No, they are the opinions of associates of lawyers that worked on the special counsel team. You are being duped all over again.
Click to expand...

These lawyers did the investigation themselves, they hold the burden of proof, they have the responsibility of completing a report when their investigation has completed. They aren't "opinions", they are two years work of interviewing witnesses, going over bank records, cooperating with other intelligence agencies within the US government and with intelligence collected from outside source like MI6 from England and Mossad from Israel for examples, going over phone and internet documents, interviewing witnesses, etc. They don't just one day say to themselves "okay I think it was like this or like that" without actually having done the work of collecting evidence.
 
Bullseye said:
You'd think guys who read for a living would actually have read Barr's initial letter. He made no claim to he comprehensive and detailed.
Click to expand...

Barr is already making excuses for his initial BS summary report. :lol:
 
Grim17 said:
More anonymous sources I see... How convenient.

If these sources actually exist and are telling the truth, why do you suppose they won't come forward and voice those opinions on the record?
Click to expand...
Because, gosh gee, they are still subordinates of the AG.
 
ludin said:
it will see the light of day by mid-april so what are you afraid of?
Click to expand...

The unredacted report? No it won’t. Maybe you should try actually reading for once.
 
HumblePi said:
The opinions aren't those of the NYT, the opinions are those of the lawyers that worked on the special counsel team.
Click to expand...

Relevant point still stands that the basis for those opinions are not revealed in the story.
 
MovingPictures said:
Because, gosh gee, they are still subordinates of the AG.
Click to expand...

My understanding is, that the people involved in the investigation are civilians who are not employed by the government and answer only to Robert Mueller. That would mean the AG's office poses no threat if one of them chose to come forward.

So... If the claims are true, coming forward and saying they think Barr's summery white-washed the report that they helped investigate and compile, doing so does not divulge confidential information, nor does it impune the integrity of the investigation or disparage anyone who was involved in it.

We all know that anyone who came forward with that information would be treated like a national hero by the mainstream news media and generously compensated for their efforts... unless of course the claims aren't true and are nothing more than another in a long list of bogus anonymous sources putting forth political BS to feed the "hate Trump" movement...
 
Grim17 said:
My understanding is, that the people involved in the investigation are civilians who are not employed by the government and answer only to Robert Mueller. That would mean the AG's office poses no threat if one of them chose to come forward.

So... If the claims are true, coming forward and saying they think Barr's summery white-washed the report that they helped investigate and compile, doing so does not divulge confidential information, nor does it impune the integrity of the investigation or disparage anyone who was involved in it.

We all know that anyone who came forward with that information would be treated like a national hero by the mainstream news media and generously compensated for their efforts... unless of course the claims aren't true and are nothing more than another in a long list of bogus anonymous sources putting forth political BS to feed the "hate Trump" movement...
Click to expand...
Then your understanding is wrong.

Most of these people work in other capacities within the DOJ and other US attorney's offices, and must still abide by department policy if they want to keep their job. Mueller was the civilian, per SC rules that dictate one lead a SC to avoid a relationship to the executive.

They are only talking off the record now because Mueller was a shark that would know if people were talking. Which just goes to show that far from treating Trump unfairly during the investigation, Mueller made sure his team did not become like Starr's or the FBI's Clinton probe, and leak to the media in a way that could damage Trump, which means the right-wing media owes him an apology for calling him a Nazi out to get the president.
 
Bullseye said:
You'd think guys who read for a living would actually have read Barr's initial letter. He made no claim to he comprehensive and detailed.
Click to expand...

Comprehensive and detailed was not the issue, whitewashing is the issue. In fact, there was no reason Barr had to release a summary, or non summary in the first place, when the Mueller team had their own detailed summary, which was discarded.
 
OscarLevant said:
Barr's four page non-summarry was a whitewash. Who woulda thunk?
Click to expand...

Well, no leaks from Muellers team, isn't that illegal? Anonymous sources or made up sources. Can't trust the story because so many false Trump collusion/obstruction stories have been printed by left wing media and not been true.
 
OscarLevant said:
Barr's four page non-summarry was a whitewash. Who woulda thunk?
Click to expand...

A full disclosure is necessary. I want to take the AG findings but will with hold judgement until ALL of the report is made available to the House.
 
OscarLevant said:
Comprehensive and detailed was not the issue, whitewashing is the issue. In fact, there was no reason Barr had to release a summary, or non summary in the first place, when the Mueller team had their own detailed summary, which was discarded.
Click to expand...
There was no "whitewashing". Barr was keeping interested parties informed. When you become Attorney General feel free to do the job as you see fit; how about according Barr the same courtesy.
 
Integrityrespec said:
Well, no leaks from Muellers team, isn't that illegal? Anonymous sources or made up sources. Can't trust the story because so many false Trump collusion/obstruction stories have been printed by left wing media and not been true.
Click to expand...


Evidence, please.
 
OscarLevant said:
Be specific, please.
Click to expand...

If you read the source material, here is the waffle and CYA paragraph:

The officials and others interviewed declined to flesh out why some of the special counsel’s investigators viewed their findings as potentially more damaging for the president than Mr. Barr explained, although the report is believed to examine Mr. Trump’s efforts to thwart the investigation. It was unclear how much discussion Mr. Mueller and his investigators had with senior Justice Department officials about how their findings would be made public. It was also unclear how widespread the vexation is among the special counsel team, which included 19 lawyers, about 40 F.B.I. agents and other personnel.
Click to expand...
 
HumblePi said:
Newp, moot point
Click to expand...

Completely relevant point:

The officials and others interviewed declined to flesh out why some of the special counsel’s investigators viewed their findings as potentially more damaging for the president than Mr. Barr explained, although the report is believed to examine Mr. Trump’s efforts to thwart the investigation. It was unclear how much discussion Mr. Mueller and his investigators had with senior Justice Department officials about how their findings would be made public. It was also unclear how widespread the vexation is among the special counsel team, which included 19 lawyers, about 40 F.B.I. agents and other personnel.
Click to expand...
 
OpportunityCost said:
If you read the source material, here is the waffle and CYA paragraph:
Click to expand...

The mere fact that the Mueller team is at odds with Barr's, um....principal conclusions...is sufficient alone for subpoenaing the report. The fact that Barr is a stooge who prejudged the investigation is strike two. And strike three? The Mueller team prepared a public version of a report, and Barr is sitting on it.
 
Cardinal said:
The mere fact that the Mueller team is at odds with Barr's, um....principal conclusions...is sufficient alone for subpoenaing the report. The fact that Barr is a stooge who prejudged the investigation is strike two. And strike three? The Mueller team prepared a public version of a report, and Barr is sitting on it.
Click to expand...

We don't know that. That's the problem with anonymous sources and unrelated basis for their supposed conclusions.
 
HumblePi said:
These lawyers did the investigation themselves, they hold the burden of proof, they have the responsibility of completing a report when their investigation has completed. They aren't "opinions", they are two years work of interviewing witnesses, going over bank records, cooperating with other intelligence agencies within the US government and with intelligence collected from outside source like MI6 from England and Mossad from Israel for examples, going over phone and internet documents, interviewing witnesses, etc. They don't just one day say to themselves "okay I think it was like this or like that" without actually having done the work of collecting evidence.
Click to expand...

Sure. I heard this crap for two years. Here are the facts: Mueller indicted NO ONE for collusion/coordination/conspiracy. It didnt happen and that is the proof. Now, you are free to follow the same group of CT nuts down the same rabbit hole, but try this time to at lease do so with some level of scepticism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom