The Mueller Report thread

[Vas Deferens]

Are we dropping bombs on Russia yet?

All these illiterate trump types are incapable of realizing the dirty knob they are collectively slurping belongs to a weak POS. Pathetic.

[*bfine32*]

(05-01-2019, 11:35 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Are we dropping bombs on Russia yet?

All these illiterate trump types are incapable of realizing the dirty knob they are collectively slurping belongs to a weak POS.  Pathetic.

Arbitrary comment is arbitrary. 

[Benton]

(05-01-2019, 06:08 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Here's what I get outta this: Basically, Barr pulled a theatrical stunt (probably at the behest of the President) to mislead the public about the conclusions drawn in the investigation, some of which he didn't even read before submitting his own summary.

Does that sound about right?

Would it be "theatrical stunt" or "lied"?

The far left have assumptions about what nobody can read in the report; the far right have protections they're going to put in place so the public doesn't read the report. At the end of the day, it'd save a lot of time if the left said "he's dirty" and did something and the right answered with "yeah, we don't care" and did their thing. The theatrics and wasting everyone's time and money is as bad as knowing the folks in Washington don't even care if they get caught lying any more.

[Bengalzona]

(05-02-2019, 01:06 AM)Benton Wrote: Would it be "theatrical stunt" or "lied"?

The far left have assumptions about what nobody can read in the report; the far right have protections they're going to put in place so the public doesn't read the report. At the end of the day, it'd save a lot of time if the left said "he's dirty" and did something and the right answered with "yeah, we don't care" and did their thing. The theatrics and wasting everyone's time and money is as bad as knowing the folks in Washington don't even care if they get caught lying any more.

"Lies" as part of a "theatrical stunt"... par for the course with the admin and it's minions.

[Belsnickel]

(05-01-2019, 09:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: From what I've read Barr was quite forthright and direct in his answers despite being constantly attacked and slurred by Congressional members from the Left.

While there was a good bit of that, that isn't an accurate representation of the hearing.

[GMDino]

(05-01-2019, 06:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But let's be real: You're lazy if you don't read it for yourself. 

Or if you say you will rely on the view of the experts...who release summaries after never reading it all. 

[Vas Deferens]

(05-02-2019, 12:19 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Arbitrary comment is arbitrary. 

ironic use of arbitrary

[GMDino]

(05-02-2019, 01:06 AM)Benton Wrote: Would it be "theatrical stunt" or "lied"?

The far left have assumptions about what nobody can read in the report; the far right have protections they're going to put in place so the public doesn't read the report. At the end of the day, it'd save a lot of time if the left said "he's dirty" and did something and the right answered with "yeah, we don't care" and did their thing. The theatrics and wasting everyone's time and money is as bad as knowing the folks in Washington don't even care if they get caught lying any more.

Barr said, in so many words, if the POTUS thinks the investigation is wrong because "he knows" he is innocent he can legally shut it down.

If the "intent" is simply to stop wasting time looking into something that the President thinks is wrong.

That is scary.

[Dill]

(05-01-2019, 06:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: How would you know if it is honest and accurate? 

(05-01-2019, 07:56 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: A letter from the author confirming the accuracy. If Robert Mueller sends me a letter telling me that my summary was not accurate and confused the Bengals Board, I'll post it. 

Edit: Don't worry, I know you were referencing the previous back and forth in which you were called lazy. I was just being a smart ass.

If you cannot read the report, and understand it, then the next best thing is, yes, a letter from the author confirming its accuracy.

And when there is a letter from the author disconfirming the accuracy, that should be a giant red flag.

Especially when followed by incredible legal acrobatics, which lead the AG claim that the President cannot be guilty of obstruction if he orders the FBI to stop investigating him because he believes he is innocent.

Trump is the president who publicly cheered a felon for not cooperating with law enforcement. Defending him damages democracy and leads his defenders to set aside their own integrity to keep him in power. No amount of Hillary whataboutery and Obama bothesidesism can change that.

[Dill]

(05-02-2019, 10:37 AM)GMDino Wrote: Barr said, in so many words, if the POTUS thinks the investigation is wrong because "he knows" he is innocent he can legally shut it down.

If the "intent" is simply to stop wasting time looking into something that the President thinks is wrong.

That is scary.

You have to bend the rules, reinterpret the law, to defend this guy.

And there seems to be no shortage of "honorable" people ready to do that, and no shortage of Trump supporters to defend the bend.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-02-2019, 10:37 AM)GMDino Wrote: Barr said, in so many words, if the POTUS thinks the investigation is wrong because "he knows" he is innocent he can legally shut it down.

If the "intent" is simply to stop wasting time looking into something that the President thinks is wrong.

That is scary.

It's just legal theory, and I read someone, who I don't believe was a conservative or anything, said it's a fine line, but not necessarily wrong.  As a theory it makes sense if you look at it outside of this specific scenario.

[Belsnickel]

(05-02-2019, 02:32 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: "Lies" as part of a "theatrical stunt"... par for the course with the admin and it's minions.

Barr is a seasoned lawyer that knows how to dance around with his language in a way that obfuscates but is not a lie, which would mean he perjured himself.

I wanted to tack on, here, something I find interesting. A lot of people are saying "why does him misrepresenting the report matter when the report was released later on?" The answer to that is in the controlling of the narrative. By providing his interpretation before the report, before anything else can really come out, it is a move to control the narrative. He puts it out there that Trump is in the clear and that is all that is needed by Trump and his allies to keep parroting, even when the report says otherwise. It was a political move, plain and simple.

I'm not saying that this is unique to Barr or even the right-wing. I'm 100% certain that were this a Democratic administration it would be the same sort of thing going on. This is why reading primary source documents is important, though. Political actors will always try to control the narrative in their favor. Every. Single. Time. Analyses and opinion pieces from pundits/experts/reporters are also the products of political actors. We cannot rely on them to tell us what is important because they will tell us what they want to.

[Belsnickel]

(05-02-2019, 10:49 AM)michaelsean Wrote: It's just legal theory, and I read someone, who I don't believe was a conservative or anything, said it's a fine line, but not necessarily wrong.  As a theory it makes sense if you look at it outside of this specific scenario.

The way our system is set up, it's not an inaccurate opinion from Barr. The Executive has the final say in those sorts of things. In some countries, where the AG falls more under the judiciary or the judiciary has the investigative authority, it may be different, but that's not how our country was set up.

[Dill]

(05-01-2019, 09:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: From what I've read Barr was quite forthright and direct in his answers despite being constantly attacked and slurred by Congressional members from the Left.

LOL sure. Lots of praise for his forthrightness on Fox last night. Hannity has gotten it right for TWO YEARS. Liberals won't apologize and won't leave the President alone!

Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill.

Kamala: Has anyone in the WH ordered you to investigate anyone else?

(30 seconds go by)

Kamala: it's a yes or no question.

Barr: Could you repeat the question?

Kamala: Happy to repeat it--has anyone asked or suggested or inferred that you should investigate anyone else.

(30 seconds go by)

Barr: I am still wrestling with the word "suggest."  blah blah blah blay? or blah blah blah blabbity blah?

five minutes later, Barr "cannot recall."  And THAT ladies and gentlemen is what "forthright and direct" means in the Trump era.

And that is why they "slur" the guy who publicly misrepresented the Mueller report and new wants to withhold the redacted version from Congress, while arguing that the president has a right to stop investigations into his dealings if he feels he is innocent.

[Belsnickel]

(05-02-2019, 10:59 AM)Dill Wrote: Kamala: Happy to repeat it--has anyone asked or suggested or inferred that you should investigate anyone else.

I heard that clip on NPR on the drive home, yesterday. My wife and I both cringed.

[BmorePat87]

(05-02-2019, 10:56 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Barr is a seasoned lawyer that knows how to dance around with his language in a way that obfuscates but is not a lie, which would mean he perjured himself.

Like saying that he assumed a Mueller aide wrote the letter, not Mueller, hence him saying that he didn't know if Mueller agreed with his conclusion despite having that letter.

[Belsnickel]

(05-02-2019, 11:08 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Like saying that he assumed a Mueller aide wrote the letter, not Mueller, hence him saying that he didn't know if Mueller agreed with his conclusion despite having that letter.

With Mueller's signature on it.

[GMDino]

(05-02-2019, 10:49 AM)michaelsean Wrote: It's just legal theory, and I read someone, who I don't believe was a conservative or anything, said it's a fine line, but not necessarily wrong.  As a theory it makes sense if you look at it outside of this specific scenario.

Outside of this scenario any POTUS could step in and say "This investigation is looking into something *I* know didn't happen so I am ending it."

Is that the kind of oversight we want?  Even want suggested would be legal?

[Dill]

(05-02-2019, 10:56 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Barr is a seasoned lawyer that knows how to dance around with his language in a way that obfuscates but is not a lie, which would mean he perjured himself.

I wanted to tack on, here, something I find interesting. A lot of people are saying "why does him misrepresenting the report matter when the report was released later on?" The answer to that is in the controlling of the narrative. By providing his interpretation before the report, before anything else can really come out, it is a move to control the narrative. He puts it out there that Trump is in the clear and that is all that is needed by Trump and his allies to keep parroting, even when the report says otherwise. It was a political move, plain and simple.

I'm not saying that this is unique to Barr or even the right-wing. I'm 100% certain that were this a Democratic administration it would be the same sort of thing going on. This is why reading primary source documents is important, though. Political actors will always try to control the narrative in their favor. Every. Single. Time. Analyses and opinion pieces from pundits/experts/reporters are also the products of political actors. We cannot rely on them to tell us what is important because they will tell us what they want to.

Certainly Dems would "Dance around with language in a way that obfuscates but is not a lie." Or in extreme cases even lie. Think of Bill's non-cooperation with the Starr investigation at times.

But this is not the usual/normal obfuscation, is it?  Barr is arguing the president can order people to lie to investigators. He has argued the president can quash an investigation into himself if he thinks he is innocent. He is ok with the president praising a felon for not cooperating with law enforcement. He is illegally withholding a document from Congress and trying to redefine that as legal.

This is about a redefinition of legal norms and standards. Neither Hillary nor Obama nor Biden nor Warren nor Bernie would be doing this.

Bothsidesism here only normalizes what is happening, makes these extraordinary legal arguments and maneuvers seem ordinary.

[Dill]

(05-02-2019, 11:08 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Like saying that he assumed a Mueller aide wrote the letter, not Mueller, hence him saying that he didn't know if Mueller agreed with his conclusion despite having that letter.

Like Mueller would not know what was in the letter if "an aide wrote it." 

Like he would allow a letter to go from the his office to the AG, under his signature, which did not clearly say what Mueller intended to say.

Lol Who knows, so hard to tell with all Democrats "slurring" the forthright and direct Barr.