The Trump Presidency - how I stopped worrying and learned to love the Hair

Emoluments decision: ‘Another tremendous step, another tremendous victory’

Laurence Tribe, who consulted on the case, told me the ruling is “very gratifying but not surprising. It’s the president’s corrupt financial entanglements with foreign governments that I’ve always believed would bring him down in the end.

The next step should be disclosure and discovery
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...er-tremendous-victory/?utm_term=.40496d32f9a9


Barr about to go before Senate Judiciary Committee, will he go to jail?


William Barr is in deep trouble
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/30/politics/william-barr-robert-mueller-mueller-report/index.html

Mueller revelations turn spotlight on Barr's independence
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/01/politics/donald-trump-william-barr-transparency/index.html

Adam Schiff Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee revealed that they have been denied some intelligence briefings for over a year!
 
Last edited:
Barr at Senate Judiciary Committee but Lindsey Graham more interested in Clinton email and FISA warrant witch hunt.

Lindsey Graham chair of Senate Judiciary Committee, yet to finish reading Mueller Report but says the issue is finished for him!
 
Last edited:
Do you know what would happen if I gave my boss a report and she presented on it to our customer (or internal upper management) and drew different conclusions than what I would reach from my report? Nothing - she's the boss and she gets to draw her own conclusions based on my data. If I started questioning her over it in public, I'd get fucking fired.

Mueller's job was to investigate and report, not to draw conclusions about his findings - that would be Barr's job. Sounds to me like Mueller forgot his place on the ladder.

... but wouldn't it be different if your job was about something, like, investigating corruption of a police department or safety of a public utility? If you turned in your report, with what you thought were findings that could be dangerous and needed attention... but then they swept your findings under a rug... couldn't that be worth your job?
 
So what you're saying is that Barr is a Trump stooge and he's in on the conspiracy to hide Mueller's findings.... from a report that's been released to the public. Huh??? How can findings be "swept under the rug" when the report has been made public?
It was redacted, obviously they were hiding things.
 
Barr: “It’s Not a Crime” for Trump to Demand Staffers Lie to Investigators
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/201...trump-to-demand-staffers-lie-to-investigators

Jeffrey Toobin: Barr's answer total 'gobbledegook'

Nicolle Wallace: Attorney General William Barr Is Lying About What's In The Report

Complete exchange between Sen. Kamala Harris and Attorney General William Barr

Sen. Hirono to Attorney General: "You knew you lied and now we know."

Complete exchange between Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Attorney General Barr

AG William Barr Will Not Recuse Himself From Investigations Stemming From Mueller Report
 
Last edited:
Mueller complained that Barr’s letter did not capture ‘context’ of Trump probe

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...82d3f3d96d5_story.html?utm_term=.8908e8b379f8
Headlines are sexy, but the content rarely ever lives up to the billing.

Here's the full article. I bolded the salient parts germane to the headline.

Washington Post said:
Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III wrote a letter in late March complaining to Attorney General William P. Barr that a four-page memo to Congress describing the principal conclusions of the investigation into President Trump “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of Mueller’s work, according to a copy of the letter reviewed Tuesday by The Washington Post.

The letter and a subsequent phone call between the two men reveal the degree to which the longtime colleagues and friends disagreed as they handled the legally and politically fraught task of investigating the president. Democrats in Congress are likely to scrutinize Mueller’s complaints to Barr as they contemplate the prospect of opening impeachment proceedings and mull how hard to press for Mueller himself to testify publicly.

At the time Mueller’s letter was sent to Barr on March 27, Barr had days prior announced that Mueller did not find a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian officials seeking to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. In his memo to Congress, Barr also said that Mueller had not reached a conclusion about whether Trump had tried to obstruct justice, but that Barr reviewed the evidence and found it insufficient to support such a charge.

Days after Barr’s announcement, Mueller wrote the previously undisclosed private letter to the Justice Department, laying out his concerns in stark terms 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.”

The letter made a key request: that Barr release the 448-page report’s introductions and executive summaries
, and it made initial suggested redactions for doing so, according to Justice Department officials. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive internal deliberations.

A spokesman for Mueller declined to comment.

Justice Department officials said Tuesday that they were taken aback by the tone of Mueller’s letter and that it came as a surprise to them that he had such concerns. Until they received the letter, they believed Mueller was in agreement with them on the process of reviewing the report and redacting certain types of information, a process that took several weeks. Barr has testified to Congress previously that Mueller declined the opportunity to review his four-page memo to lawmakers that distilled the essence of the special counsel’s findings.

In his letter to Barr, Mueller wrote that the redaction process “need not delay release of the enclosed materials. Release at this time would alleviate the misunderstandings that have arisen and would answer congressional and public questions about the nature and outcome of our investigation.”

Barr is scheduled to appear Wednesday morning before the Senate Judiciary Committee — a much-anticipated public confrontation between the nation’s top law enforcement official and Democratic lawmakers, where he is likely to be questioned at length about his interactions with Mueller.

A day after Mueller sent his letter to Barr, the two men spoke by phone for about 15 minutes, according to law enforcement officials.

In that call, Mueller said he was concerned that media coverage of the obstruction probe was misguided and creating public misunderstandings about the office’s work, according to Justice Department officials. Mueller did not express similar concerns about the public discussion of the investigation of Russia’s election interference, the officials said. Barr has testified previously that he did not know whether Mueller supported his conclusion on obstruction.

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.

In their call, Barr also took issue with Mueller calling his memo a “summary,” saying he had never intended to summarize the voluminous report, but instead provide an account of its top conclusions, officials said.

Justice Department officials said that, in some ways, the phone conversation was more cordial than the letter that preceded it, but that the two men did express some differences of opinion about how to proceed.

Barr said he did not want to put out pieces of the report, but rather issue the document all at once with redactions, and that he didn’t want to change course, according to officials.

In prepared written remarks for Wednesday's hearing, Barr said he "did not believe that it was in the public interest to release additional portions of the report in piecemeal fashion, leading to public debate over incomplete information."

Barr also gave Mueller his personal phone number and told him to call if he had future concerns, officials said.

Throughout the conversation, Mueller’s main worry was that the public was not getting an accurate understanding of the obstruction investigation, officials said.

“After the Attorney General received Special Counsel Mueller’s letter, he called him to discuss it,” a Justice Department spokeswoman said Tuesday evening in a statement. “In a cordial and professional conversation, the Special Counsel emphasized that nothing in the Attorney General’s March 24 letter was inaccurate or misleading. But, he expressed frustration over the lack of context and the resulting media coverage regarding the Special Counsel’s obstruction analysis. They then discussed whether additional context from the report would be helpful and could be quickly released.

“However, the Attorney General ultimately determined that it would not be productive to release the report in piecemeal fashion,” the spokeswoman said. “The Attorney General and the Special Counsel agreed to get the full report out with necessary redactions as expeditiously as possible. The next day, the Attorney General sent a letter to Congress reiterating that his March 24 letter was not intended to be a summary of the report, but instead only stated the Special Counsel’s principal conclusions, and volunteered to testify before both Senate and House Judiciary Committees on May 1 and 2.”

Some senior Justice Department officials were frustrated by Mueller’s complaints because they had expected that the report would reach them with proposed redactions, but it did not. Even when Mueller sent along his suggested redactions, those covered only a few areas of protected information, and the documents required further review, these people said.

The Washington Post and the New York Times had previously reported some members of Mueller’s team were frustrated with Barr’s characterization of their work, though Mueller’s own attitude was unknown before now.

In some team members’ view, the evidence they had gathered — especially on obstruction — was far more alarming and significant than how Barr had described it. That was perhaps to be expected, given that Barr had distilled a 448-page report into a terse, four-page memo to Congress.

Wednesday’s hearing will be the first time lawmakers question Barr since the Mueller report was released on April 18, and he is expected to face a raft of tough questions from Democrats.

Republicans on the committee are expected to question Barr about an assertion he made earlier in April that government officials had engaged in “spying” on the Trump campaign — a comment that was seized on by the president’s supporters as evidence the investigation into the president was biased.

Barr is also scheduled to testify Thursday before the House Judiciary Committee, but that hearing could be canceled or postponed amid a dispute about whether committee staff lawyers will question the attorney general. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the panel’s chairman, called for a copy of the Mueller letter to be delivered to his committee by Wednesday morning.

Democrats have accused Barr of downplaying the seriousness of the evidence against the president. Mueller’s report described 10 significant episodes of possible obstruction of justice but said that because of long-standing Justice Department policy that says a sitting president cannot be indicted and because of Justice Department practice regarding fairness toward those under investigation, his team did not reach a conclusion about whether the president had committed a crime.

In summary: Mueller was concerned about public and media perception resulting from Barr's memo of Mueller's report. Mueller himself acknowledges that nothing was taken out of context or manipulated, or misleading. As a prosecutor, one should be asking why is he concerned with how the media is taking this? Particularly, since, mentioned above, he never expressed similar concerns while he was conducting his report and the media were just as culpable in taking things out of context. Barr's integrity remains intact.

... but wouldn't it be different if your job was about something, like, investigating corruption of a police department or safety of a public utility? If you turned in your report, with what you thought were findings that could be dangerous and needed attention... but then they swept your findings under a rug... couldn't that be worth your job?
Mueller's findings were anything but swept under. No collusion or ovbstruction, but the tone and description of Trump's behaviour wasn't exactly kind to him.

It was redacted, obviously they were hiding things.
C'mon, that's a bit obtuse. The redactions were legally required and mutually agreed upon by Barr and Mueller's team, due to grand jury proceedings, or information that could otherwise compromise ongoing investigations. That's not the same thing as hiding something.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TC
@jack_christie, do you read/watch in full the links you put up? It's nigh impossible to invest time correcting you because you (intentionally, I suspect) post volumes of this garbage at once, making it overwhelming for anyone who even wants to engage in good faith.

For example: the Mazie Hirono clip above is pure junk. In the first five minutes of her time, she didn’t ask one question! She ultimately asked only four the last of which was damning. She accuses Barr of knowing that Trump pardoned people so they wouldn't testify against him... Barr asked when this happened, and all she could say was "don't act like we don't know what the hell is going on." In other words, she just made a baseless accusation against the attorney general. Hirono started her statement by accusing Barr of compromising himself for the “grifter and liar in chief in the Oval Office.” Talk about a shining bastion of senatorial integrity.... she’s not clearly putting party over the truth, is she now?

Kamala Harris throughout that entire clip does what Kamala Harris does (I’ve watched multiple video shows of her in the Senate over the last year or so). She asks vague questions, I.e. “did Trump or anyone in his office suggest that you start other investigations?”... when Mueller asked her to clarify ‘suggest’ she actually used “infer” as an example. She also accused him of not going over all the evidence presented in the report (translation: do it all over) and asked whose job is it to decide whether or not to prosecute? She was a prosecutor herself, she already knows the answers to these questions, and they aren’t what she wanted to hear anyway. She’s not stupid, she’s playing for the cameras for her presidency bid. She also cut him off multiple times when he tried to expound upon yes/no questions she was foisting upon him. Her one good question was about Rod Rosenstein and whether he was cleared (about possible conflict, due to his involvement in Comey’s firing), but she didn’t even go about this honestly, she just wanted to pin on Barr that Rosenstein was allowed to continue (and he was passed by the Senate, with her as a member, overwhelmingly to do so 2 years ago).

Klobuchar took the most professional swing at Barr of the clips you posted. She spent the first half of her time engaging the AG to work with her proposed non-partisan projects on helping improve the elections process to reduce risk of compromise, to which he agreed to at least meet with and consider the principles of their proposal. However, she comes partially unglued (but nowhere near the level of histrionics displayed by the unhinged Hirono, or the disrespect of Harris) in the second half when she asks (good) pointed questions about specific examples mentioned in the Mueller Report and whether Barr feels they constitute obstruction. Upon receiving his answers, she turned smug, and when faced with the core principal having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (that obstruction occurred), she touts her own law school training (to a twice AG, no less) and makes poor references to looking at a “pattern” (which is not the same as beyond reasonable doubt).

All were desperate to paint Barr as the architect of Mueller’s report. They criticized him for transparency. He wasn’t obligated to provide any of it to the public, he didn’t have to hold a press conference mere hours before he released it, to answer questions, and he took great pains to explain how neither Trump nor his lawyers were allowed to make any redaction requests.

The last guy (I forget his name) kept asking Barr if he had any discussion with anyone in the White House about cases spun off or from the Mueller Investigation, ti which Barr said “not that I recall”, then later said “names of cases may have been mentioned but no substantive details.” When asked what could refresh his memory, Barr said that a chance to gloss over all cases in question could help him answer more precisely. These are the responses of someone who doesn’t want to perjur himself... that does not automatically make him a liar, or imply he needs to recuse himself from anything at this point.

The leftists are terrified because we already know that the Mueller investigation was predicated by a falsified Steele Dossier, paid for by the Clinton campaign and paid to a foreign national. Of course they want Barr, and anyone else, from daring to probe into this further.

I wonder why you aren’t interested in posting Republican senators questioning the attorney general? Or why you only ever quote far left pundits? Surely, if you cared about truth you would try to look at multiple angles?

Oh, and Jeffrey Toobin? Yeah, this is him...


He is the most intellectually bankrupt person on CNN, just as you are the most intellectually bankrupt person on these forums.
 
Last edited:
Do you know what would happen if I gave my boss a report and she presented on it to our customer (or internal upper management) and drew different conclusions than what I would reach from my report? Nothing - she's the boss and she gets to draw her own conclusions based on my data. If I started questioning her over it in public, I'd get fucking fired.

Mueller's job was to investigate and report, not to draw conclusions about his findings - that would be Barr's job. Sounds to me like Mueller forgot his place on the ladder.
I guess it's a good thing you aren't the AG of the US. A government representative willingly misleading the people and congress about the nature of an investigation is corrupt as all hell - the fact you don't see it as such is profoundly troubling, but not as much as the cronyism surrounding Trump and his administration.
 
I guess it's a good thing you aren't the AG of the US. A government representative willingly misleading the people and congress about the nature of an investigation is corrupt as all hell - the fact you don't see it as such is profoundly troubling, but not as much as the cronyism surrounding Trump and his administration.
Where did he mislead anyone? The report is publicly available. Mueller himself said that Barr's summary was accurate. All Barr did was decline to release 19 pages that Mueller wanted done before the report was made available,. Barr preferred to release the whole thing when it was ready, and he did.
 
To add, apparently Mueller stated 3 times to Barr that the notion of not being able to indict a sitting US president did not play a role in his conclusion (or lack thereof) on obstruction. He specifically stated that if his team felt there was enough evidence to indict, they would challenge that notion and recommend prosecution, but that wasn't the case here. So that narrative is now bunk, apparently. It seems Mueller also didn't believe obstruction could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but refused to say so, preferring to let Barr get destroyed by the media instead. The bravery is truly awe inspiring.

And now we have to wait weeks longer for Mueller to testify about why he refused to do his job and make a recommendation, since his team is "still working on an explanation", and even AG Barr is in the dark on why. Wonderful. Nothing greasy/sleazy about that.

The political games being played here is disgusting. Nothing but bad faith actors acting in bad faith. Now Nancy Pelosi's dumb ass is on TV talking about how this is one big giant conspiracy involving the NRA and the energy sector. Lord save me.
 
But don't worry! Mueller will save us! /s
 
Where did he mislead anyone? The report is publicly available. Mueller himself said that Barr's summary was accurate. All Barr did was decline to release 19 pages that Mueller wanted done before the report was made available,. Barr preferred to release the whole thing when it was ready, and he did.
In his press conference - the one that happened before the report was released, the one in which he was very selective in what he shared and how is phrased things to set the narrative of the discussion.

If the report was so good for Trump, why would he need to do that? Muller stated that the report in no way exonerates, Trump, despite what Trump claimed. Now Barr is refusing to be a witness before Congress and is threatening to ignore subpoenas. In the mean time, we have an administration that is using "interim", unconfirmed individuals all over the government, or leaving key positions open - effectively consolidating power and eroding the separation of powers.
 
In his press conference - the one that happened before the report was released, the one in which he was very selective in what he shared and how is phrased things to set the narrative of the discussion.
Please be specific: what did Barr say that was misleading?

If the report was so good for Trump, why would he need to do that?
I assume by "that?" you mean hold the press conference at all? (correct me if I'm wrong). He certainly wasn't obligated to, but one can only assume he did so to add to the transparency provided, including providing details that Trump and his lawyers did not have rights to redactions requests, that all redactions were done working alongside Mueller, and that he (Barr) said "no obstruction" because Mueller himself could not bring himself to recommend indictment based on the existing information.

You know why I'm confident that this wasn't misleading? Because the full report (minus redactions, obviously) became publicly available immediately after, and there is no suggestion from within the Mueller camp that was altered in any way.

Someone has to explain to me how a press conference he held for a report he didn't author to discuss how he came to his summary, provided full (again, redactions) public access to the report within hours, for which his own summary does not contradict the author's findings (as stated by the author himself) can be somehow misleading.

Muller stated that the report in no way exonerates, Trump, despite what Trump claimed.
You can't have it both ways. Mueller can't decide to punt on obstruction to Barr, then claim the report doesn't exonerate Trump. Either commit to your findings or not. He chose not to. It then becomes Barr's job to take the prosecutor's evidence and make a conclusion as to whether or not indictment is warranted. Mueller said there was no clear evidence to prosecute on obstruction (spare me the "he couldn't find Trump guilty" excuse, I debunked that in an earlier post and no one anywhere has been able to refute it).

Now Barr is refusing to be a witness before Congress and is threatening to ignore subpoenas. In the mean time, we have an administration that is using "interim", unconfirmed individuals all over the government, or leaving key positions open - effectively consolidating power and eroding the separation of powers.
Barr's objection wasn't about being a witness before Congress... proof: he did it yesterday. His objection to today (which he declared before yesterday's testimony had even occurred) was to present grand jury materials to lawyers that represented Congress, but were NOT a part of Congress itself, and also because he correctly refused to cede to Nadler’s demands that he be given access not not only to the unredacted report, but also the grand jury testimony. Congress can demand he provide salient information to them, but not to private citizens on Congress' behalf, and not for unverified, investigative information not in the report (but used to make the report) that Mueller himself felt did not support a case for obstruction. Jerry Nadler is getting into seriously dangerous territory with that request.
 
Last edited:
In general I'd like to point out that prosecutors make decisions not to indict people because they don't think they would win in a trial. We don't call people who avoid prosecution in that way guilty of crimes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TC
Top