NY Times wrote:The total of 300-plus pages suggests that Mr. Mueller went well beyond the kind of bare-bones summary required by the Justice Department regulation governing his appointment and detailed his conclusions at length. And it raises questions about what Mr. Barr might have left out of the four dense pages he sent Congress.
Aquila89 wrote:Mid-April? That's when the final season of Game of Thrones comes out, so a lot of people will be distracted. Coincidence? (Yes.)
Fun With Mr. Fudge wrote:Aquila89 wrote:Trump said he's fine with releasing the full report, so I doubt there's anything seriously damning in it.
Trump also said he was eager to be interviewed by Mueller and would do it under oath and also indicated that he would sign a spending bill that did not include the border wall funding he wanted. I'm not saying Trump is lying, but he has a long history of backtracking and lying that goes way beyond those two examples, so I'm skeptical.
In a series of tweets, Trump disparaged congressional Democrats for their efforts to obtain the full report; noted that one of them had opposed the public release of grand jury information from independent counsel Kenneth Starr’s report on Bill Clinton; and tweeted a Fox News clip of lawyer Alan Dershowitz emphasizing that the Justice Department could keep the entire Mueller report confidential.
Aquila89 wrote: Besides, if Barr was seriously misrepresenting Mueller's findings, don't you think Mueller or members of his team would say something about it?
Some of Robert S. Mueller III’s investigators have told associates that Attorney General William P. Barr failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry and that they were more troubling for President Trump than Mr. Barr indicated, according to government officials and others familiar with their simmering frustrations.
The special counsel’s investigators had already written multiple summaries of the report, and some team members believe that Mr. Barr should have included more of their material in the four-page letter he wrote on March 24 laying out their main conclusions, according to government officials familiar with the investigation. Mr. Barr only briefly cited the special counsel’s work in his letter.
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.
members of Mueller’s team have complained to close associates that the evidence they gathered on obstruction was alarming and significant.
“It was much more acute than Barr suggested,” said one person, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the subject’s sensitivity.
Aquila89 wrote:The Washington Post on the same subject, however, wrote:members of Mueller’s team have complained to close associates that the evidence they gathered on obstruction was alarming and significant.
“It was much more acute than Barr suggested,” said one person, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the subject’s sensitivity.
So the complainst are only about the obstruction part; still no collusion.
The Mueller team is reportedly saying it wrote summaries for each section, which it believed Barr could release immediately and without a need to redact. Instead, he chose to summarize the report almost completely in his own words and didn’t even include complete sentences from Mueller’s report.
Absentia wrote:Naturally both sides are claiming vindication because their most extreme critics were proven wrong and nobody ever agreed on what "collusion" actually is anyway.
: secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose
Democrats believed Russian collusion was their easiest path toward impeachment. — WSJ, "Michael Cohen Was No Silver Bullet For the Hopeful Democrats," 8 Mar. 2019
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests