Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[Canpinter]

Again for those in the cheap seats claiming there was never any evidence of collusion to begin with. Don jr meet with someone claiming to be part of the Russian government offering dirt on Hillary, that fact alone warrants an investigation.

[Ripster42]

Don't hold your breath. He thinks Project Veritas is reliable.

Which is why it's basically impossible to take them seriously.

BTW, anyone who takes barr's whitewash at face value doesn't understand what standards of proof are nor what barr's position on the president being able to commit obstruction of justice is.

Edit: is at the end there.

[Captain N]

Which is why it's basically impossible to take them seriously.

BTW, anyone who takes barr's whitewash at face value doesn't understand what standards of proof are nor what barr's position on the president being able to commit obstruction of justice.

Anyone with a knowledge of Barr's history and why he was appointed by Trump should understand his brief summary to Congress. But I suppose this is another one of those things that constitutes #Winning with the base.

[Somewhatconcerned]

Which is why it's basically impossible to take them seriously.

BTW, anyone who takes barr's whitewash at face value doesn't understand what standards of proof are nor what barr's position on the president being able to commit obstruction of justice is.

Edit: is at the end there.

With all due respect, and this isn't necessarily directed at you, but I would take Barr's position over some random people on a wow fansite.

The left just honestly needs to drop this and quickly pivot to something else. Trump has already thrown them a bone with the recent ACA news - they should focus on that, it's just about the only positive policy position they have these days.

- - - Updated - - -

Anyone with a knowledge of Barr's history and why he was appointed by Trump should understand his brief summary to Congress. But I suppose this is another one of those things that constitutes #Winning with the base.

So now essentially Barr is blatantly LYING to Congress?

When does it stop?

[Valeron]

With all due respect, and this isn't necessarily directed at you, but I would take Barr's position over some random people on a wow fansite.

The left just honestly needs to drop this and quickly pivot to something else. Trump has already thrown them a bone with the recent ACA news - they should focus on that, it's just about the only positive policy position they have these days.

Why not just release the full report? No harm in that right?

[beanman12345]

So now essentially Barr is blatantly LYING to Congress?

When does it stop?

When they get the meuller report that clears up all these unanswered questions. then dems will move on. if you actually want dems to move on, you should want them to get the meuller report asap, if that's what you actually want, not sure it is actually.

[Captain N]

So now essentially Barr is blatantly LYING to Congress?

When does it stop?

Not what I said but you can believe that if you want to.

Barr did make comments that a sitting President cannot be indicted. Barr was responsible for letting Republicans off the hook during Iran-Contra

If you believe that someone who made those comments and performed those actions was hired for any other reason but to protect Trump from the results of the Mueller investigation then I have a bridge to sell you.

Lying seems to be the only thing this Administration...well I don't want to say good at because they keep winding up in jail for doing that.

[Somewhatconcerned]

When they get the meuller report that clears up all these unanswered questions. then dems will move on. if you actually want dems to move on, you should want them to get the meuller report asap, if that's what you actually want, not sure it is actually.

Have Republicans actually said that that will never, ever happen? Didn't McConnell say something along the lines of giving Barr the professional courtesy?

Why does everything need to be some grand conspiracy? Sometimes you just lose. This whole thing reeks of all the hysteria on election night 2016 and only furthers to give the left a bad name.

- - - Updated - - -

Not what I said but you can believe that if you want to.

Barr did make comments that a sitting President cannot be indicted. Barr was responsible for letting Republicans off the hook during Iran-Contra

If you believe that someone who made those comments and performed those actions was hired for any other reason but to protect Trump from the results of the Mueller investigation then I have a bridge to sell you.

Lying seems to be the only thing this Administration...well I don't want to say good at because they keep winding up in jail for doing that.

So Barr has some biases...don't we all?

Agree that Congress should see the report...if anything so that they can shut up and move on...

[Zaydin]

Have Republicans actually said that that will never, ever happen? Didn't McConnell say something along the lines of giving Barr the professional courtesy?

Why does everything need to be some grand conspiracy? Sometimes you just lose. This whole thing reeks of all the hysteria on election night 2016 and only furthers to give the left a bad name.

- - - Updated - - -

Agree that Congress should see the report...if anything so that they can shut up and move on...

If only Republicans had been mature enough to take that stance when James Comey took the unprecedented and unprofessional step of bashing Hillary Clinton publicly while also announcing he wouldn't recommend any charges against her.

Trumpkins still happily chant 'Lock Her Up' at Trumps Nuremberg rallies.

[Captain N]

So Barr has some biases...don't we all?

Agree that Congress should see the report...if anything so that they can shut up and move on...

Protecting potential criminal behavior is not a bias -- it's literally obstruction of justice.

I think you're making it quite clear why you're defending Barr at this point.

[beanman12345]

Have Republicans actually said that that will never, ever happen? Didn't McConnell say something along the lines of giving Barr the professional courtesy?

Why does everything need to be some grand conspiracy? Sometimes you just lose. This whole thing reeks of all the hysteria on election night 2016 and only furthers to give the left a bad name.

This isn't some winners and losers. this is important shit that's been going on for 2 years and people want to know why the fuck trump has been making shit up about shit he didn't need to to cover for shit he never did. all trump does is lie lie lie lie lie. Dems want answer. not from partisan hacks, but from the horses mouths. it's simple, want dems to move on? give them the meuller report. put it all to bed.

[shimerra]

So Barr has some biases...don't we all?

Agree that Congress should see the report...if anything so that they can shut up and move on...

And we pay him to do his best to ignore those biases. When he has a professional track record of doing the opposite people are right to raise issue. Seriously you're gonna sit here and defend the guy who tried to bury Iran-Contra among other faux pauxs in an even more retarded variation of the "both sides" fallacy? His selection and comments made before confirmation directly call into question his ability to remain impartial

I mean dear god you sound like one of those morons crying about how the investigation was a waste of time when it caught the crimes of dozens of people and actually generated a profit for the tax payer.

[Ripster42]

With all due respect, and this isn't necessarily directed at you, but I would take Barr's position over some random people on a wow fansite.

The left just honestly needs to drop this and quickly pivot to something else. Trump has already thrown them a bone with the recent ACA news - they should focus on that, it's just about the only positive policy position they have these days.

He's the guy that made sure iran contra never had a conclusive end. Don't know why you'd take his biased opinion.

Edit: I mean, besides bush.

[Somewhatconcerned]

And we pay him to do his best to ignore those biases. When he has a professional track record of doing the opposite people are right to raise issue. Seriously you're gonna sit here and defend the guy who tried to bury Iran-Contra among other faux pauxs in an even more retarded variation of the "both sides" fallacy? His selection and comments made before confirmation directly call into question his ability to remain impartial

I mean dear god you sound like one of those morons crying about how the investigation was a waste of time when it caught the crimes of dozens of people and actually generated a profit for the tax payer.

You do realize you're basically suggesting that the Barr lied about the findings of the Mueller report and/or dramatically failed to disclose all the info. Do you really think he would make such a blatant lie, given the House's subpoena power?

And don't you think Mueller himself would have spoken up by now if his findings were so drastically twisted?

Again, not everything is some conspiracy.

[Flarelaine]

Congressman Literally Quotes Hitler In House To Attack Democrats, Press, Mueller Report

Totally waiting for the the GOP leadership and Trump to condemn this.... /s

Oh. Alabama. Of course.

[Ripster42]

You do realize you're basically suggesting that the Barr lied about the findings of the Mueller report and/or dramatically failed to disclose all the info. Do you really think he would make such a blatant lie, given the House's subpoena power?

And don't you think Mueller himself would have spoken up by now if his findings were so drastically twisted?

Again, not everything is some conspiracy.

Uh, yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. We know he didn't "disclose all the info" or he'd just have released the report. We know what his position on the president committing obstruction of justice is. We should know what "failed to establish" means wrt a criminal investigation.

Edit: I'll say it again, that report was the reason he was nominated for AG in the first place.

[Somewhatconcerned]

Uh, yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. We know he didn't "disclose all the info" or he'd just have released the report. We know what his position on the president committing obstruction of justice is. We should know what "failed to establish" means wrt a criminal investigation.

Edit: I'll say it again, that report was the reason he was nominated for AG in the first place.

From a legal standpoint, I doubt a report of that magnitude can be quickly released (to Congress or public) without making sure all confidential and classified info is protected first. So to expect that right away just isn't realistic IMO.

Again, if Mueller's findings were so grossly distorted then why hasn't he spoken up by now?

[beanman12345]

You do realize you're basically suggesting that the Barr lied about the findings of the Mueller report and/or dramatically failed to disclose all the info. Do you really think he would make such a blatant lie, given the House's subpoena power?

And don't you think Mueller himself would have spoken up by now if his findings were so drastically twisted?

Again, not everything is some conspiracy.

yeah barr might have lied. Nadler thinks he might have and has done just that, subpeona'd the report by april 2nd. But yes, dem's should just believe a trump appointed partisin hack over their own elected officials on these matters because you have a "feeling"

[Ripster42]

From a legal standpoint, I doubt a report of that magnitude can be quickly released (to Congress or public) without making sure all confidential and classified info is protected first. So to expect that right away just isn't realistic IMO.

Again, if Mueller's findings were so grossly distorted then why hasn't he spoken up by now?

Because mueller has ethics, and he's bound by DoJ policy not to release information on suspects when he doesn't have the needed proof to indict a criminal. That standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt. There are 2 more (preponderance of the evidence and clear and convincing), one of which is used much more in court for the US legal system, especially when the subject isn't in jeopardy of jail time (as in an impeachment proceeding).

BTW, it's not like barr committed a crime. He's just putting spin on the report. I'm not saying the investigation found enough evidence at the time of the release of the report to indict and he stated otherwise. Mueller likely did not make a "standard prosecutorial decision" about obstruction. But again, you have to understand what those terms mean in relation to the report: they didn't meet the high bar of criminal prosecution for any crime related to coordinating specifically with official russian govt employees nor did he definitively say whether or not trump should be impeached for obstruction. He definitely has evidence of the former, and for the second the precedent isn't for the SCO or the AG to make that determination but congress.


Edit: as to the release of materials: barr could just ask a judge to let him and it would override any policy the DoJ has about not releasing info obtained in a grand jury. The odds he wouldn't be approved are virtually nil because of the overriding "public interest."
- - - Updated - - -

yeah barr might have lied. Nadler thinks he might have and has done just that, subpeona'd the report by april 2nd. But yes, dem's should just believe a trump appointed partisin hack over their own elected officials on these matters because you have a "feeling"

Again, I don't think barr lied. I just think he used some pretty wide latitude with terms when he ethically shouldn't have.

[Somewhatconcerned]

Because mueller has ethics, and he's bound by DoJ policy not to release information on suspects when he doesn't have the needed proof to indict a criminal. That standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt. There are 2 more (preponderance of the evidence and clear and convincing), one of which is used much more in court for the US legal system, especially when the subject isn't in jeopardy of jail time (as in an impeachment proceeding).

BTW, it's not like barr committed a crime. He's just putting spin on the report. I'm not saying the investigation found enough evidence at the time of the release of the report to indict and he stated otherwise. Mueller likely did not make a "standard prosecutorial decision" about obstruction. But again, you have to understand what those terms mean in relation to the report: they didn't meet the high bar of criminal prosecution for any crime related to coordinating specifically with official russian govt employees nor did he definitively say whether or not trump should be impeached for obstruction. He definitely has evidence of the former, and for the second the precedent isn't for the SCO or the AG to make that determination but congress.


Edit: as to the release of materials: barr could just ask a judge to let him and it would override any policy the DoJ has about not releasing info obtained in a grand jury. The odds he wouldn't be approved are virtually nil because of the overriding "public interest."
- - - Updated - - -



Again, I don't think barr lied. I just think he used some pretty wide latitude with terms when he ethically shouldn't have.

So basically if/when the report is released to Congress, it'll be very similar to this forum, where people will argue semantics for days and both sides will declare victory?