Judge orders DOJ to give him unredacted Mueller report

[Edge-]

Mueller didn't think Barr's summary captured everything he wanted. Okay.

did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions

Not just "everything he wanted", but literally that Barr's summary didn't appear to capture most of the report.

Then you have spokespeople for the DOJ and the special counsel saying they're in complete accord.

Already addressed this earlier, here we go again - https://thehill.com/policy/national-...n-mueller-barr

The Special Counsel’s report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination – one way or the other – about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements

That's what they're in complete accord on, and that's a very specific aspect of the report. An aspect of the report not in question relating to Barr's summary, Mueller's letter to Barr, nor this judges order.

It's real hard to view this as honest engagement in discussion, because this is grossly misrepresenting their joint statement.

But what's more, I can actually read the report and read Barr's letter. And you know what, Edge-?

I know that. You just aren't displaying any indication that you've read either or seem to understand either. Hence why you linked a garbage op-ed that was nonsense from pretty much top to bottom.

I can see where the complaint comes from that Barr didn't lay out every damning allegation of obstruction (you know, the obstruction for the crime he didn't commit and was dogging his presidency), or give all the nuanced details, but I think he got it substantially correct.

This is you projecting.

Mueller's letter said nothing about "damning evidence" and made no comments on what specific materials he was objecting about which you seem to imply. His complaint was that the report was mischaracterized, which is what this judge is looking into right now.

You may think it was "substantially correct", but both Mueller, who wrote the report, and this judge, who is not some "#resistance" hero or "leftist activist judge", disagree with you.

I'm going with the Republican appointed federal judge and the Republican appointed Special Councel, who is himself a Republican.

It was a summary. People wanted the bleepin' report, but it had to go through redactions. So we got the summary and it was substantially in line with the report.

Again, if you're ignoring Muellers letter to Barr voicing his concerns about it being misrepresented and causing confusion.

Official letters like that aren't written for the fuck of it. They're rare as hell.

Edit: Still waiting on that link backing up your claim that Trump was unable to make deals with foreign heads of state due to...some investigation, I'm not sure which.

[Dacien]

Already addressed this earlier, here we go again - https://thehill.com/policy/national-...n-mueller-barr

And that's great. That doesn't speak to the "messaging", I'll grant you that, but I'm just wholly not convinced by Mueller's frowning over not being able to characterize Trump's innocence to the public in a way that suited him. The core findings were what everybody cared about, and that's what they got. The only people complaining about Barr's messaging were people who didn't like the message.

That's what they're in complete accord on, and that's a very specific aspect of the report. An aspect of the report not in question relating to Barr's summary, Mueller's letter to Barr, nor this judges order.

It's real hard to view this as honest engagement in discussion, because this is grossly misrepresenting their joint statement.

See above.

This is you projecting.

Mueller's letter said nothing about "damning evidence" and made no comments on what specific materials he was objecting about which you seem to imply. His complaint was that the report was mischaracterized, which is what this judge is looking into right now.

We're going off the rails. It was a turn of phrase, Edge-.

[Edge-]

but I'm just wholly not convinced by Mueller's frowning over not being able to characterize Trump's innocence to the public in a way that suited him.

Because the report didn't establish his guilt or innocence. Which was the whole fucking point, dude. Barr asserting that it "cleared Trump" or did anything of the sort wasn't correct, because it did not do that as that was not its intent. It didn't condemn or convict Trump, it didn't come to a conclusion.

So I'm not even sure why you're trying to connect those two unconnected things.

We're going off the rails. It was a turn of phrase, Edge-.

We're not. You are here, you're dealing with conservative punditry alt-reality and not actual reality.

Again, still waiting on you to back up your claim from a few pages ago.

[Dacien]

Because the report didn't establish his guilt or innocence. Which was the whole fucking point, dude. Barr asserting that it "cleared Trump" or did anything of the sort wasn't correct, because it did not do that as that was not its intent. It didn't condemn or convict Trump, it didn't come to a conclusion.

So I'm not even sure why you're trying to connect those two unconnected things.

You know, I do love the way Mueller's report gets to do that. That is very unique and special. Very, very serious allegations can be laid out, and no matter what, even if the investigators do not find that you did it, doesn't matter! They didn't find you innocent, it's just a fact-finding mission, you see. Enjoy the albatross.

But to your point, the report literally states that Mueller did not find conspiracy. That's part of what Barr relayed. That's what everybody cared about.

[Beefhammer]

I argued for years that there was no Trump/Russia conspiracy, and even tried to explain it by reading the plea deals, giving precedent, and on and on and on. Nobody wanted to hear it, and said much the same things you're saying now.

Some people try to argue that it all actually happened. Just too crafty for Mueller. Not the obstruction, but the conspiracy. People in an argument about the Mueller report will actually argue that the conspiracy occurred, it's right there in the report, stop being wrong. Others acknowledge it, but then bog down in the fact that Barr's messaging wasn't to their liking. Didn't capture the essence, the nature, the substance. Forgot to put candles on before the summary. TL;DR: Trump didn't do the conspiracy we can move on.

I just can't believe people are still sticking their necks out over it. It was all a bunch of crap man, and there's plenty to suggest Mueller and his team knew in 2017 that there was no conspiracy. John Dowd, Trump's lawyer in the nascency of the Mueller probe, said, "By early December, [Mueller] had exhausted all of the evidence and the witnesses." Dowd, if you'll recall, was the one who encouraged full cooperation with Mueller's team, and offered up any and every staff member for interview Mueller wanted. Get it over with as soon as possible, was the strategy, before the dark cloud of a Special Counsel investigation can cause too much damage. Mueller was even done with Carter Page at that point, according to Dowd, and all the Trump Tower attendees.

So we get this Papadopoulos plea deal in October 2017, and that was the absolute best Mueller was ever going to offer to people hungry for justice they felt was denied. Spent twelve days in jail for lying to the FBI about when he learned of alleged stolen Hillary emails. But it dragged on for another year and a half, and there were tons of leaks beforehand to temper expectations. And it drops and it's everything I argued it was, with 100% assistance from Andrew C. McCarthy, Mollie Hemmingway, and others.

You know why we're arguing about messaging? Why Barr's messaging didn't capture the substance? Because Trump wasn't guilty. That's the only reason we're talking about any of this crap with Barr. It's a second place prize. It's political.

Again with you are wrong and twisting what is known. But keep doing you, and we'll keep proving you wrong.

[Noxx79]

Who said the lawyer feared for his job? I'm not even sure where you got that from. No, Trump's lawyer, Dowd, relayed that these conversations between Trump and foreign leaders took place.

No, the lawyer wasn't afraid for his job, he was just telling the story during an interview.

- - - Updated - - -



If the retort is, "He may not have been found guilty, but he's not not guilty!" then yeah, that uh, pretty much stands on it's own.

So the lawyer is telling people people he’s afraid the president won’t be president, but he’s not afraid the president t won’t be president
You’ve lost your mind. All of your bull shit is coming back to you and you do t know how to handle it.

Have you had an original thought in your head?

Answer the question. How was trump hamstrung? “Deereer that’s just what the lawyer said” isn’t an answer.

Use you own brain. Answer the question with your own words, not with the pathetic grooming you’ve been subject to.

[Xirrohon]

Barr and the Mueller team did the redactions together. Not sure what the controversy is.

[d00mGuArD]

Because the report didn't establish his guilt or innocence. Which was the whole fucking point, dude. Barr asserting that it "cleared Trump" or did anything of the sort wasn't correct, because it did not do that as that was not its intent. It didn't condemn or convict Trump, it didn't come to a conclusion.

So I'm not even sure why you're trying to connect those two unconnected things.

To be fair, and I don't want to take sides here because my knowledge on this report is limited, but if guilt is not established everyone is by default innocent... even trump. That's how it works everywhere on this planet.
You prove guilt, or the person is cleared

[Noxx79]

To be fair, and I don't want to take sides here because my knowledge on this report is limited, but if guilt is not established everyone is by default innocent... even trump. That's how it works everywhere on this planet.
You prove guilt, or the person is cleared

No, that’s not how it works. That phrase is over used and misunderstood. “Innocent until proven guilty” means the state has to prove guilt, not that the defense has to prove innocence. That’s it.

Was Al Capone not a gangster? He was only proven to be a tax evader. Hitler was innocent? He wasn’t found guilty of anything because he was dead before being put to trial. Was Bill Clinton not a sex pest? He only has been proven to lie under oath. That’s it.

No. Just because someone wasn’t proven to do something, doesn’t mean they are by default innocent. Only in the court of law.

[Shalcker]

No, that’s not how it works. That phrase is over used and misunderstood. “Innocent until proven guilty” means the state has to prove guilt, not that the defense has to prove innocence. That’s it.

That Trump wasn't proven guilty by "state" is the entire point.

And that isn't going to change with things that were redacted in Mueller report.

[Orbitus]

That Trump wasn't proven guilty by "state" is the entire point.

And that isn't going to change with things that were redacted in Mueller report.

But he also wasn't exonerated either. Mueller specifically stated that.

[Noxx79]

That Trump wasn't proven guilty by "state" is the entire point.

And that isn't going to change with things that were redacted in Mueller report.

Are you sure about that? Because mueller said that he couldn’t charge the president due to justice department guidelines. Therefore ethically mueller couldn’t say if he would charge the president, because as a member of the justice department, he can’t say “we want to charge someone who can’t be charged” because they can’t defend themselves in court. A member of the justice department can’t ethically accuse somebody without recourse by the defendant. (I know “ethics” are a foreign concept to trump supporters, but a dictionary will help you understand)

This does NOT apply to anyone not in the justice department. People can treat probable criminals like probable criminals.

All of this leads to the basic idea: The information in the mueller report therefore needs to be in the hands of the people who can actually do something about it: Congress.

[Shalcker]

Are you sure about that? Because mueller said that he couldn’t charge the president due to justice department guidelines. Therefore ethically mueller couldn’t say if he would charge the president, because as a member of the justice department, he can’t say “we want to charge someone who can’t be charged” because they can’t defend themselves in court. A member of the justice department can’t ethically accuse somebody without recourse by the defendant. (I know “ethics” are a foreign concept to trump supporters, but a dictionary will help you understand)

As far as i see evidence presented in Mueller report is insufficient to indict Trump on conspiracy charges.

There might be argument for obstruction - for which Trump indeed cannot be charged on current justice department guidelines.

That isn't likely to change with redacted parts, or we would see it from Mueller's later testimony. It is unlikely that Mueller withheld any evidence either (and then that certainly isn't going to appear in redacted parts too).

This does NOT apply to anyone not in the justice department. People can treat probable criminals like probable criminals.

All of this leads to the basic idea: The information in the mueller report therefore needs to be in the hands of the people who can actually do something about it: Congress.

What exactly this fishing expedition is supposed to bring up? And what exactly is Congress going to do about it, after they already did impeachment?

[zenkai]

But he also wasn't exonerated either. Mueller specifically stated that.

And it doesn't it prove him guilty either.

[Orbitus]

And it doesn't it prove him guilty either.

Nope, the Mueller report pretty much did though. Considering at least 2 instances of Russian collusion in the Mueller report, were shown to be in it. The Trump Tower meeting, and Manafort giving the internal polling data to Konstantin Kilimnik so he can target states that barely voted for Trump.

[Edge-]

You know, I do love the way Mueller's report gets to do that. That is very unique and special. Very, very serious allegations can be laid out, and no matter what, even if the investigators do not find that you did it, doesn't matter! They didn't find you innocent, it's just a fact-finding mission, you see. Enjoy the albatross.

Because. The. Report. Wasn't. Supposed. To. Come. To. Any. Conclusions. Are we still fucking on this?

But to your point, the report literally states that Mueller did not find conspiracy. That's part of what Barr relayed. That's what everybody cared about.

Minus the part where Barr said it proved there was no collusion, for example, which is something the report never actually addresses.

https://apnews.com/f9c0ab20229140f18ea34e1f15a9f597

BARR: “The evidence is now that the president was falsely accused of colluding with the Russians and accused of being treasonous. ...Two years of his administration have been dominated by allegations that have now been proven false.” — Senate hearing Wednesday.
...
THE FACTS: Allegations of “collusion” were not “proven false” in the Mueller investigation, nor was the issue of “collusion” addressed in the report.

GRAHAM: “As to obstruction of justice, Mr. Mueller left it to Mr. Barr to decide after two years, and all this time. He said, ‘Mr. Barr, you decide.’ Mr. Barr did.” — Senate hearing.

THE FACTS: Not true. Mueller did not ask Barr to rule on whether Trump’s efforts to undermine the special counsel’s Russia investigation had obstructed justice.

Not Barr, but just more factual information for you since you seem to have missed all of this over the past year or so.

Again, you're literally proving the judge right in this thread by repeating the debunked Barr misrepresentations of the report.

[zenkai]

Nope, the Mueller report pretty much did though. Considering at least 2 instances of Russian collusion in the Mueller report, were shown to be in it. The Trump Tower meeting, and Manafort giving the internal polling data to Konstantin Kilimnik so he can target states that barely voted for Trump.

No it didn't

[Orbitus]

No it didn't

Wow, so you have nothing to refute what I just said, that you just went to the childish "nuh uh" retort?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konsta...Trump_campaign

Through numerous regular email exchanges, Kilimnik conferred with Manafort after Manafort became Donald Trump's campaign manager in April 2016 and requested that Manafort give "private briefings" about the Trump campaign to Oleg Deripaska, a Russian billionaire and close ally to Vladimir Putin.[14][30][31] On 2 August 2016, Kilimnik met with Manafort and Rick Gates at the Grand Havana Room at 666 Fifth Avenue.[32] The encounter which, according to prosecutor Andrew Weissmann goes “very much to the heart of what the special counsel’s office is investigating,” included a handoff by Manafort of internal polling data from Trump’s presidential campaign to Kilimnik.[33] Gates later testified the three left the premises separately, each using different exits.[33]

Yeah, totally didn't happen, right?

And the Trump Tower meeting happened on the premise that they had damning information on Hillary Clinton. We know this, the whole WORLD knows this, but apparently you don't? Not fucking surprising, you have to do everything you can to defend Trump.

[zenkai]

Wow, so you have nothing to refute what I just said, that you just went to the childish "nuh uh" retort?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konsta...Trump_campaign



Yeah, totally didn't happen, right?

And the Trump Tower meeting happened on the premise that they had damning information on Hillary Clinton. We know this, the whole WORLD knows this, but apparently you don't? Not fucking surprising, you have to do everything you can to defend Trump.

He said The Mueller report showed Trump was guilty then you linked a *giggle* wikipedia showing someone who was associated with Trump having ties. /facepalm If the bullshit you was saying was true it would be all over the news. That should be the first indication hat you don't know what you're talking about.

[Noxx79]

As far as i see evidence presented in Mueller report is insufficient to indict Trump on conspiracy charges.

There might be argument for obstruction - for which Trump indeed cannot be charged on current justice department guidelines.

That isn't likely to change with redacted parts, or we would see it from Mueller's later testimony. It is unlikely that Mueller withheld any evidence either (and then that certainly isn't going to appear in redacted parts too).

What exactly this fishing expedition is supposed to bring up? And what exactly is Congress going to do about it, after they already did impeachment?

I am 100% calling bullshit on you having read the report, so I pretty much ignore what you have to say about the contents.

- - - Updated - - -

He said The Mueller report showed Trump was guilty then you linked a *giggle* wikipedia showing someone who was associated with Trump having ties. /facepalm If the bullshit you was saying was true it would be all over the news. That should be the first indication hat you don't know what you're talking about.

... yes nobody reported the trump tower meeting. It wasn’t in the news.

Are you seriously that detached from reality? Jesus.

So much for facts and logic. I love watching you huniiare yourself with every post.