Mueller investigation

[James Madison]

Barr didn't lie.

Four lies Barr told

All four paragraphs in Schumer’s Tweet plausibly may not constitute as “lies.”

Schumer should have selected, if possible, more concrete examples of misleading.

The characterization of lie by omission, 4th paragraph, is flawed. The omitted information isn’t contradictory to Barr’s comments.

 

[ideologyhunter]

What you're saying (about how his supporters can stay with him) is true, and it's like we learned in Psych I: cognitive dissonance. That, plus laziness. And most of them really do hate what Trump hates.

 

[Trausti]

Barr didn't lie.

Four lies Barr told

All four paragraphs in Schumer’s Tweet plausibly may not constitute as “lies.”

Schumer should have selected, if possible, more concrete examples of misleading.

The characterization of lie by omission, 4th paragraph, is flawed. The omitted information isn’t contradictory to Barr’s comments.

It's all about creating more excuses to whine. If the unredacted report is released, they'll still find reasons to whine. There is no happiness for the Russia Truther.

 

[James Madison]

Wake up! The Mueller report is consistent with Barr’s characterization you cite and quote to in your post.

Barr's characterization wasn't actually a characterization. It was a seriously politically motivated abbreviated overview of the two primary objectives of the investigation, which in general, should lead to a characterization of a report, except in this case, where Mueller says Trump dun fucked up on abuse of powers... but a conviction in court would be very hard because he must prove intent of Trump... and most of the people who were ordered to obstruct justice either refused to comply or refused to testify due to fear of self-incrimination.

Mueller's Report says, in quite a few more words, 'It would be very hard for me to convict on these charges, but Congress should impeach Trump.'

That is the accurate characterization of the Mueller Report. Barr's initial report on the Mueller Report was, maybe not a "lie", but I think "complete bullshit" could accurately characterize his initial public assessment.

The phrase “complete bullshit” probably isn’t accurate, well, it isn’t accurate. But I digress.

There are some very concerning facts in the Report. I’m not sure they warrant impeachment but I’m not opposed to the possibility of impeachment.

I personally dislike Trump, and my visceral reaction is to demand impeachment. But for rather obvious, compelling reasons, I’m not willing to let my, dare I say, disgust for Trump dominate my thoughts as to the propriety of impeachment. Although again, I dislike him so much, it’s hard to resist!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

All four paragraphs in Schumer’s Tweet plausibly may not constitute as “lies.”

Schumer should have selected, if possible, more concrete examples of misleading.

The characterization of lie by omission, 4th paragraph, is flawed. The omitted information isn’t contradictory to Barr’s comments.

It's all about creating more excuses to whine. If the unredacted report is released, they'll still find reasons to whine. There is no happiness for the Russia Truther.

Dude, Mueller says impeach. I wouldn’t gloat over the report. Mueller didn’t in any way clear Trump.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wake up! The Mueller report is consistent with Barr’s characterization you cite and quote to in your post.

Barr's characterization wasn't actually a characterization. It was a seriously politically motivated abbreviated overview of the two primary objectives of the investigation, which in general, should lead to a characterization of a report, except in this case, where Mueller says Trump dun fucked up on abuse of powers... but a conviction in court would be very hard because he must prove intent of Trump... and most of the people who were ordered to obstruct justice either refused to comply or refused to testify due to fear of self-incrimination.

Mueller's Report says, in quite a few more words, 'It would be very hard for me to convict on these charges, but Congress should impeach Trump.'

That is the accurate characterization of the Mueller Report. Barr's initial report on the Mueller Report was, maybe not a "lie", but I think "complete bullshit" could accurately characterize his initial public assessment.

The phrase “complete bullshit” probably isn’t accurate, well, it isn’t accurate.

I feel it is accurate because his comments intentionally misled the public. Yes, one could read between the lines via the qualifications used in the statements and footnote(s), but the up front portion really took Mueller out of context. And in that sense, while technically saying truths, the initial assessment he gave was "complete bullshit".

There are some very concerning facts in the Report. I’m not sure they warrant impeachment but I’m not opposed to the possibility of impeachment.

I agree. Hatred of a person isn't impeachable... well actually it is if Congress is who hates the President (see Andrew Johnson), but my comments are reflective of Mueller's own report which indicates that Congress is the venue to deal with Presidential abuse of powers. And Mueller's report doesn't include that statement for academic purposes.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

My two cents...

The redacted stuff is mostly about Roger Stone and related items to his criminal case. I don't think the report should have been created until after they make Stone sing because his singing like a canary or stool pigeon could have impacted the conclusions of the report. So, for example, if Stone gives up Trump in a plea deal or gives up a contact in the campaign that was coordinating with him when he coordinated with Guccifer 2.0, then it would establish a connection. Along the same lines, I don't think impeachment hearings should begin yet. Stone has to sing first or at least be in prison with convictions so those things can be treated like facts within a larger framework of documented facts.

 

[James Madison]

The phrase “complete bullshit” probably isn’t accurate, well, it isn’t accurate.

I feel it is accurate because his comments intentionally misled the public. Yes, one could read between the lines via the qualifications used in the statements and footnote(s), but the up front portion really took Mueller out of context. And in that sense, while technically saying truths, the initial assessment he gave was "complete bullshit".

The word “complete” is the problem, as it is not accurate, regardless of your “feeling” it’s accurate.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Trausti]

All four paragraphs in Schumer’s Tweet plausibly may not constitute as “lies.”

Schumer should have selected, if possible, more concrete examples of misleading.

The characterization of lie by omission, 4th paragraph, is flawed. The omitted information isn’t contradictory to Barr’s comments.

It's all about creating more excuses to whine. If the unredacted report is released, they'll still find reasons to whine. There is no happiness for the Russia Truther.

Dude, Mueller says impeach. I wouldn’t gloat over the report. Mueller didn’t in any way clear Trump.

House Democratic leader Hoyer: impeachment 'not worthwhile': CNN

Trump's enemies tried to frame him for a phony crime. He was investigated for two years and cleared of the phony crime. Now he is guilty of obstructing justice because the efforts to frame him for the phony crime failed. What the actual fuck. Paging Franz Kafka.

 

[Trausti]

nm

 

[laughing dog]

Trump's enemies tried to frame him for a phony crime. He was investigated for two years and cleared of the phony crime. Now he is guilty of obstructing justice because the efforts to frame him for the phony crime failed. What the actual fuck. Paging Franz Kafka.

Wow, this is one serious case of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The phrase “complete bullshit” probably isn’t accurate, well, it isn’t accurate.

I feel it is accurate because his comments intentionally misled the public. Yes, one could read between the lines via the qualifications used in the statements and footnote(s), but the up front portion really took Mueller out of context. And in that sense, while technically saying truths, the initial assessment he gave was "complete bullshit".

The word “complete” is the problem, as it is not accurate, regardless of your “feeling” it’s accurate.

Misquoting or characterizing someone isn't allowed to hide from being called "complete bullshit". When a YEC'er misquotes something from a geology textbook, they don't get to say 'well, it isn't "complete" bullshit', the quote is true.

Barr's assessment did not reflect on the The Mueller Report accurately, nor did it attempt to. Barr knew exactly the political hatchet job he was doing because he had to add "the footnote" to it.

In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the Special Counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign “coordinated” with Russian election interference activities. The Special Counsel defined “coordination” as an “agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.”

It seems innocuous, but what Barr is doing is initially carving out a small slice of the report and holding only to that.

 

[ZiprHead]

The phrase “complete bullshit” probably isn’t accurate, well, it isn’t accurate.

I feel it is accurate because his comments intentionally misled the public. Yes, one could read between the lines via the qualifications used in the statements and footnote(s), but the up front portion really took Mueller out of context. And in that sense, while technically saying truths, the initial assessment he gave was "complete bullshit".

The word “complete” is the problem, as it is not accurate, regardless of your “feeling” it’s accurate.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, that's the problem.

 

[ZiprHead]

We've also learned that tapeS do exist and probably still exist. That means Bonespurs is compromised and shouldn't be anywhere near top secret data.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

We've also learned that tapeS do exist and probably still exist. That means Bonespurs is compromised and shouldn't be anywhere near top secret data.

He's a rich, straight, white male. So, it's okay.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We've also learned that tapeS do exist and probably still exist.

We learned that the tapes might exist, and that Cohen was led to believe they did exist and he told Trump about it. Also that Cohen lied again to Congress, in his "I'm telling the truth now" Tour, about said tapes and whether he knew if any existed. He said no.

That means Bonespurs is compromised and shouldn't be anywhere near top secret data.

It certainly is a threat and statements made by whoemever, defend the Dossier, again.

- - - Updated - - -

We've also learned that tapeS do exist and probably still exist. That means Bonespurs is compromised and shouldn't be anywhere near top secret data.

He's a rich, straight, white male. So, it's okay.

Well straight, white, and male. He could be entirely indebted to whomever.

 

[James Madison]

The word “complete” is the problem, as it is not accurate, regardless of your “feeling” it’s accurate.

Misquoting or characterizing someone isn't allowed to hide from being called "complete bullshit". When a YEC'er misquotes something from a geology textbook, they don't get to say 'well, it isn't "complete" bullshit', the quote is true.

Barr's assessment did not reflect on the The Mueller Report accurately, nor did it attempt to. Barr knew exactly the political hatchet job he was doing because he had to add "the footnote" to it.

In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the Special Counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign “coordinated” with Russian election interference activities. The Special Counsel defined “coordination” as an “agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.”

It seems innocuous, but what Barr is doing is initially carving out a small slice of the report and holding only to that.

Misquoting or characterizing someone isn't allowed to hide from being called "complete bullshit". When a YEC'er misquotes something from a geology textbook, they don't get to say 'well, it isn't "complete" bullshit', the quote is true.

You aren’t making any sense. If some part of Barr’s summary characterization is accurate, and undoubtedly some of it is accurate, then it cannot logically be “complete” B.S. That is just rudimentary, common sense.

Barr's assessment did not reflect on the The Mueller Report accurately, nor did it attempt to.

That is not correct. Some of Barr’s assessment does accurately reflect the Report, and is evidence Barr did “attempt to” give an accurate assessment in those specific areas of agreement.

Furthermore, it is not at all certain or clear Barr’s assessment “did not accurately reflect on the Mueller Report.”





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

The word “complete” is the problem, as it is not accurate, regardless of your “feeling” it’s accurate.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, that's the problem.

It is the problem with Higgins’ characterization, as it is inapplicable. It’s “obvious.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[laughing dog]

Furthermore, it is not at all certain or clear Barr’s assessment “did not accurately reflect on the Mueller Report.”

It is abundantly clear that Barr's assessment did not accurately reflect the entirety of the Mueller Report. For example, the sense from the statement from the Mueller Report that
""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." was not transmitted in Barr's summary.

 

[Gun Nut]

Trump's enemies tried to frame him for a phony crime.

This is factually incorrect. Who planted fake evidence (framed) Trump? You do realize that the investigative reporting that led to the special counsel's appointment was initially funded by Republicans, right? when they got the data that could only harm them, they just dropped it, and then the Dems picked it up. and the folks that ran with it were ALL Trump-appointed Republicans... so who are these enemies you are talking about? and what is the faked evidence you are talking about?

He was investigated for two years and cleared of the phony crime.

Russian actors and their US associates were investigated for two years for the actual, undisputed, crime of committing computer fraud for the purpose of disrupting the US democratic process. 17 people were indicted. The President would have been indicted if he fell under DoJ oversight... but he doesn't and that was made exceptionally clear in the report - stated numerous times that evidence was found of wrongdoing but it is a matter for Congress to provide oversight of the President, not the FBI.
He was not cleared.. just the opposite... he was found "criminally involved, but unindictable, due to regulations - so this is for Congress to to followup on". Cleared? lol!

Now he is guilty of obstructing justice because the efforts to frame him for the phony crime failed. What the actual fuck. Paging Franz Kafka.

no, he is obviously, in plain sight, guilty of obstruction of justice because of his actions around trying to end the investigation into Russia's illegal activities (act of war, in my opinion).
If any honest citizen were wrongly accused of a crime for which they could defend themselves, then they defend themselves... they don't try to obstruct justice with witness tampering if they are innocent... because that is illegal regardless of the validity of charges.
But in Trump's case, it is really hard to see how he is not guilty of obstruction, and it is also hard to see how he is not tied up in illegal Russian activities also.

I think what is really far off here is your information sources. Maybe go beyond headlines and bylines and read the content and then fact check it yourself. Your quality of knowledge of what is going on here is extremely poor.