Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[D Luniz]

I dunno how to format quotes on this website, but...

Days after Barr’s announcement, Mueller wrote a previously unknown private letter to the Justice Department, which revealed a degree of dissatisfaction with the public discussion of Mueller’s work that shocked senior Justice Department officials, according to people familiar with the discussions.

“The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions,” Mueller wrote. “There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”

use QUOTE /QUOTE but add [ and ] around the quote and / quote

but there should be a button to the right of the flim looking button, highlight the stuff you want to quote then hit that

[Breccia]

Looks like Barr is about to have to fall on his sword

Let's pretend all this is true. What would Barr accomplish?

I've brought this up before. If the report really is damning, and Barr really is suppressing the bad parts, all that does is implicate him, too. Is stalling really that useful?

[Gorsameth]

Let's pretend all this is true. What would Barr accomplish?

I've brought this up before. If the report really is damning, and Barr really is suppressing the bad parts, all that does is implicate him, too. Is stalling really that useful?

We've seen the report. There is no much blacked out. Barr is not sppressing anything at this point.
What he did was get in front of the narrative by claiming the President was innocent and that it was his call to make and the people to who he was talking, Trump voters, have bought into that narrative.
His job is done.

[Shadowferal]

Post won't let me read it--can you do an excerpt or two.

MSN has it all from the Post; Mueller complained that Barr’s letter did not capture ‘context’ of Trump probe

I hope tomorrow is going to be interesting.

[Grapemask]

Really interesting that the Mueller letter comes out right before Barr testifies. It also seems hard to believe that it would have been released by anyone other than somebody on Mueller's team. There's just enough time for the public to become aware that Mueller is dissatisfied with Barr's spin, but not enough time for Barr to spin the letter significantly before he testifies. I know he was expecting Republicans to run defense for him, but I wonder if he'll just call the whole thing off now.

Edit: CNN's article and others starting to pop up elsewhere imply that they've each been given the same letter and they've each independently verified, and they're not just reposting WaPo's findings. Looks like whoever released this cast a pretty wide net.

[beanman12345]

Pretty clear the fat lard ass committed obstruction, er both fat lard asses.

[Edge-]

Let's pretend all this is true. What would Barr accomplish?

I've brought this up before. If the report really is damning, and Barr really is suppressing the bad parts, all that does is implicate him, too. Is stalling really that useful?

Peeing in the pool, functionally. Uncertainty and doubt on the issue is a win for Trump because it plays into his narrative. Most folks won't read the report, and large chunks likely won't read anything beyond listening to Barr's press conference. It helps provide a barrier against popular support for potential impeachment proceedings.

His press conference set the narrative and first impressions, and first impressions are all that most folks have.

[Shadowferal]

I have to wonder if Barr will either eventually fall on his (short) sword, or break...

[Varvara Spiros Gelashvili]

I can't wait for republicans to investigation spygate cause they have a great track record with investigations.

[Masark]

We've seen the report. There is no much blacked out.

I suppose that depends on your definition of "not much".

[Edge-]

I suppose that depends on your definition of "not much".

Realistically, it's not. It's what, I think I heard 10% or so of the report that's redacted? That's pretty low for a large document containing both Grand Jury information, details about ongoing investigations, and redacting to protect the identities of private citizens not directly involved in the investigation.

This isn't defending Barr, his summary was fucking horse shit, but it's a fair point that this wasn't a heavily redacted document in the slightest.

[Dacien]

So the contrarians to this bombshell (not me) are pointing to this section in the WaPo story:

"When Barr pressed Mueller on whether he thought Barr’s memo to Congress was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not but felt that the media coverage of it was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said."

They then argue that Mueller was simply bothered that Barr's summary did not include all the arguments necessary to explain his position.

Can you believe these people?

[D Luniz]

Can you believe these people?

I trust in their constancy

[Varvara Spiros Gelashvili]

So the contrarians to this bombshell (not me) are pointing to this section in the WaPo story:

"When Barr pressed Mueller on whether he thought Barr’s memo to Congress was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not but felt that the media coverage of it was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said."

They then argue that Mueller was simply bothered that Barr's summary did not include all the arguments necessary to explain his position.

Can you believe these people?

Whose that quote from? It's from the doj spokesperson totally trustworthy source. She even tried to downplay the call dude but you've already defended Barr why not go farther.

[Dacien]

Whose that quote from? It's from the doj spokesperson totally trustworthy source. She even tried to downplay the call dude but you've already defended Barr why not go farther.

I don't know what to think, I've been out of the game since shortly after the report dropped. I need some new political intrigue to get me interested again. All I know is that the right is pushing back. And by "right" I mean people who I actually respect, like Charles C.W. Cooke for example. Among others.

[Varvara Spiros Gelashvili]

I don't know what to think, I've been out of the game since shortly after the report dropped. I need some new political intrigue to get me interested again. All I know is that the right is pushing back. And by "right" I mean people who I actually respect, like Charles C.W. Cooke for example. Among others.

Yes, you do the donald has been running with that talking point all day just stop. You paid just enough attention to defeat Trump as usual.

[wunksta]

All I know is that the right is pushing back.

Pushing back against what?

[Grapemask]

So the contrarians to this bombshell (not me) are pointing to this section in the WaPo story:

"When Barr pressed Mueller on whether he thought Barr’s memo to Congress was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not but felt that the media coverage of it was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said."

They then argue that Mueller was simply bothered that Barr's summary did not include all the arguments necessary to explain his position.

Can you believe these people?

Yeah, the right wing as a whole has centered in on that specific quote. It's all over Twitter. Literally every rightwing commentator with the same image of that same small section. It gives away just how vile the right wing's defensive spin has become, because everything above and below that quote tells a completely different story than what they're pushing. It's so openly dishonest that it speaks volumes for how stupid they think their readers are - and how correct they are in their assumptions, based on how accepting some of those readers seem to be.

[Dacien]

Pushing back against what?

They're just saying it's being misrepresented. But I guess we'll know more after the hearing.

[wunksta]

They're just saying it's being misrepresented. But I guess we'll know more after the hearing.

It's a difficult situation since he can't say anything publicly. IIRC he's willing to testify, and hearing from him directly would put this to rest.