Mueller to Barr: Summary letter did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance...

Speedwell said:

He did, but Barr chose not to pass it along.

Click to expand...

Mueller also declined to review barr's summary letter, when given the chance.

If he is so concerned with how his report was initially summarized, why not at least review barr's summary?

It is moot now, since the full report is out, but that baffles me a bit.

bhsmte said:

Mueller also declined to review barr's summary letter, when given the chance.

If he is so concerned with how his report was initially summarized, why not at least review barr's summary?

Click to expand...

Maybe he trusted Barr to summarize it honestly?

RocksInMyHead said:

Maybe he trusted Barr to summarize it honestly?

Click to expand...

Maybe, but if he is so concerned about how media and public is perceiving any summary, why not give it a look?

Baffled by that after the fact reaction and also him not doing what a prosecuter does, make a call on whether the evidence merits charges. Punting that, to the AG, when mueller was brought in to be independent, just doesnt add up.

NotreDame said:

Great. Give me the link to the quoted question of whether Mueller "expressed disagreement."

I have no evidence such a statement exists. None. You have cited to none.

The prose you reference in the post does not substantiate at all that Barr was asked whether Mueller "expressed disagreement." Quoting to me a journalists interpretation and what the journalist said is not evidence of a member of Congress specifically asking Barr the question of whether Mueller "expressed disagreement."

Now, I do know Barr was asked whether Mueller "supported" Barr's conclusions, and Barr stated he did not know.

Finally, the part of Mueller's letter you quote, "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of the investigation," does not substantiate Barr "lied." Indeed, at the moment, according to Barr, he asked Mueller if Mueller believed Barr's summary was inaccurate and Barr stated Mueller was not of the opinion of Barr summary was inaccurate.

So, no. Your evidence does not establish Barr lied. You have established, however, some journalist have taken artistic license to allege Barr is a liar, apparently on the same flimsy, nonexistent evidence you find so compelling.

Click to expand...

I used to respect many of the views you express here. But you can go play childish semantic games with someone else...

NotreDame said:

What am I defending that you find paradoxical?

Click to expand...

Barr doing his best to cover up for Donny's crimes. That seems like a serious breach of the institutions that truly "make America great". Donny seems to think that he's the king. Why defend that?

If I'm misreading, then feel free to correct me. I've never understood support of Donny (not necessarily saying that you do).
Ringo

bhsmte said:

Maybe, but if he is so concerned about how media and public is perceiving any summary, why not give it a look?

Baffled by that after the fact reaction and also him not doing what a prosecuter does, make a call on whether the evidence merits charges. Punting that, to the AG, when mueller was brought in to be independent, just doesnt add up.

Click to expand...

I agree that it seems odd for him to not review the summary, but it's really easy to judge stuff like this in hindsight. From a logical perspective, it didn't make sense for Barr to summarize the report inaccurately since the full report was going to be released in a few weeks, but he did it anyways.

On Mueller not making recommendations, that's much easier to understand. It all comes down to the guideline that a sitting President can't be charged with a crime. There's definitely some sense to that, but to treat it as an ironclad regulation is perhaps a bit silly.

NotreDame said:

He "absolutely lied." Bold claim. What is the evidence Barr "absolutely lied'?

Click to expand...

There are at least 3 lies.

1.. The first lie was in his first testimony in his response to Congressman Crist question:
Crist: Reports have emerged recently, General, that members of the special counsel's team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24 letter, that it does not adequately or accurately portray the report's findings. Do you know what they are referencing with that?
Barr: No, I don't.

He was asked about this answer in the second hearing, and his lie was exposed in an exchange that begins at ~1:00:50 when he was asked about it.

"I don't know what members he's talking about" - it doesn't matter which members they're talking about. He then changes the actual question asked to reference "accuracy", whereas the question that he answered "no, I don't to" was about if any member expressed "frustration at some level with the limited information" - which was explicitly addressed in his memo, the answer is obviously yes.

His defense is that they asked about Mueller's team, not about Mueller. "I talked to Bob Mueller, not members of his team." Is Bob Mueller not part of "Mueller's team"?

He lied in his first testimony, and his excuse in the 2nd testimony is flimsy.

2. Later in this exchange, Leahy asked Barr about his statement that Trump "fully cooperated". Donald Trump "fully cooperated" with the investigation. Leahy gives several instances of actions that are distinctly not "full cooperation". Additionally, there are numerous instances in section 2 of the Mueller report that are likewise distinctly not "full cooperation". He dictated a false statement about the Trump Tower meeting. Is that "fully cooperating"? Moreover, he wouldn't answer questions directly, and his written answers were found to be "inadequate" by Robert Mueller. I don't see how you can reasonably put forth that Trump "fully cooperated" with the investigation.

3. Regarding Trump ordering Don McGahn to fire Robert Mueller, and his parsing of "fired" and "removed". It's in line with his previous deceptive answers designed to provide a narrative that contradicts the facts that were available to him. You can argue that it wasn't technically a lie, but when you testify under oath, it's not "do you swear to not tell technical lies", but "do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". He obviously obfuscated. He certainly didn't tell the whole truth.

Whether you believe, for some reason, that these lies may not be enough to constitute perjury charges, in a non-legal sense, he definitely lied in those 3 cases.


"not reflective"? In what way? At the moment, Mueller did not allege or believe Barr's summary was inaccurate.[/QUOTE]

Don't have time to address this right now, i'll get back to this later. In the meantime read Mueller's letter to Barr, and convince yourself that Mueller found Barr's summary "reflective" of the findings. "threatening to undermine" is a pretty significant way to phrase his concerns with the way Barr's statement was phrased.

Ringo84 said:

Barr doing his best to cover up for Donny's crimes. That seems like a serious breach of the institutions that truly "make America great". Donny seems to think that he's the king. Why defend that?

If I'm misreading, then feel free to correct me. I've never understood support of Donny (not necessarily saying that you do).
Ringo

Click to expand...

Barr doing his best to cover up for Donny's crimes.

Click to expand...

Which I’ve never done in this thread. For a few reasons.

First, I never took such a position. What I’ve been deflecting against has been your hyper-partisanship, which has colored your view of the Report, Trump, the evidence, and your resorting to personal attacks against anyone who, God forbid, challenge your “provable reality.”

Of course, I’m not without my biases, no one is a tabula rasa, but my view of the Report isn’t tainted by the same degree of partisan revulsion inundating your posts. A great example is this notion you peddled that there were 10, 10, prosecutable instances of obstruction by Trump, when anyone who has given a proper reading and honest assessment of the obstruction report knows not all 10 instances have enough evidence, some are conspicuously lacking evidence.

Your rush to condemn Barr as a liar without even pausing to consider he sincerely believes in his legal analysis and conclusions just wreaks of partisan bias. Whereas I know Barr gave a legal analysis, and his analysis not cogent, legal reasoning may believe, sincerely believe, in his view.

Second, I’ve said in this thread, and elsewhere in other threads, there are at times some very strong evidenced for obstruction in regards to some of Trump’s conduct, or at least a strong indication some specific acts by Trump was obstruction or attempted obstruction. However, what’s puzzling for me, and others, is the thought in the back of our heads that we are missing something. I’ll elaborate below.

I’m looking at all the puzzle pieces, which includes Barr’s statement Mueller advised he did not reach a prosecutorial decision because of the OLC memo, translated that Mueller would have made such a decision “but for” the OLC memo. Mueller’s statement in the Report that Trump’s conduct regarding obstruction, split in two phases, should be evaluated in its totality. Well, the total evidence is mix between long shot, 50/50, to strong. So, when looking at all of it, what’s the proper conclusion? I’m not sure.

Part of the reason I’m unsure is because obstruction of justice isn’t my speciality. And I’m skeptical of the lawyers on MSNBC, CNN, Fox, Bloomberg, and Vox, as partisan, blinded lawyers, or the lawyers partisan reputation precedes them. Like a Pythia in the temple, I can predict with near 100% accuracy, maybe it’s 100, the lawyers views pertaining to obstruction based on the show they appear on as a guest. My prescience is almost godlike in terms of omniscience.

Dershowitz, on Fox, concludes no obstruction. No shock there. Hardball with Chris Matthews, he doesn’t even try to appear neutral. Hannity, Bloomberg, they reach a conclusion and hunt down lawyers and evidence to support their preconceived beliefs.

So, I went with two lawyers, which I cited to in this thread and another thread, whose analysis best fit the evidence in the Report. This is of course based on my own best efforts to read the evidence like a lawyer, as free from partisan influence and as objectively as possible.

But why say any of this to you? You have this all figured out. You’ve tried a plethora of obstruction cases, won many of them, you’re the Johnny Cochrane, no the Perry Mason, of evaluating obstruction of justice evidence in the Report. You’re the smartest guy in the room on this subject, the philosopher lawyer to lead the rest of us in the darkness of Plato’s cave to the blinding light of that which is “abundantly obvious.”

Well, my sincere apologies if my many readings and analysis doesn’t conform to your “abundantly obvious” view of the Report regarding obstruction. I find very little of what you’ve said about the obstruction part of the Report to be accurate. You simply have deferred too much to partisan spin of the Report. It’s understandable as your hatred of Trump led you right to the well of those serving up buckets of partisan spin that conforms to your partisan proclivities.

Donny seems to think that he's the king. Why defend that?

Click to expand...

Never have. I fear your partisanship colors everything you’re reading in this thread.

Allandavid said:

I used to respect many of the views you express here. But you can go play childish semantic games with someone else...

Click to expand...

The defensive retort by those who can’t rationally defend their claims. The “childish games” is to claim X, then slither away spitting ad hominems when asked to support your views. Better to be thought one has a truthful claim than to speak or type a poor argument and confirm the bankruptcy of your argument.’

My "hyperpartisan spin". That's rich. Really rich. An AG is acting as the personal lawyer for a president who committed crimes, saying that "because the obstruction works, it isn't obstruction" and giving us Trump-friendly spin of a report he summarized in a misleading four page memo. But golly gee... he sincerely believes his own analysis, so I guess we just have to accept it as fact, right?

The worst sort of people in this current age of ours are not the mere bootlickers. It's the people who know better but still lick boots.
Ringo

Ringo84 said:

My "hyperpartisan spin". That's rich. Really rich. An AG is acting as the personal lawyer for a president who committed crimes, saying that "because the obstruction works, it isn't obstruction" and giving us Trump-friendly spin of a report he summarized in a misleading four page memo. But golly gee... he sincerely believes his own analysis, so I guess we just have to accept it as fact, right?

The worst sort of people in this current age of ours are not the mere bootlickers. It's the people who know better but still lick boots.
Ringo

Click to expand...

My goodness man, you aren’t capable of an objective analysis. For instance:

But golly gee... he sincerely believes his own analysis, so I guess we just have to accept it as fact, right?

Click to expand...

Never made any such statement, suggestion, implication, or inference. Recall, I said the possibility, plausibility, Barr sincerely believes his legal analysis and conclusions means he isn’t necessarily lying. He could be mistaken but mistaken isn’t lying. Your partisanship rushes to declare Barr is lying. Now, ostensibly, your blind partisanship has you misconstruing what I said and why.

The worst sort of people in this current age of ours are not the mere bootlickers. It's the people who know better but still lick boots.

Click to expand...

Like you? You don’t even try to conceal your partisan bias in this thread.

I know enough to know your view of the obstruction part of the Report is not, generally speaking, accurate or supported by the Report itself. It’s nothing more than your partisan spin.

I know enough that you’ve made a hasty partisan allegation of Barr having lied.

How can you be guilty of hiding something released to the public?

Besides the fact that Mueller wasn't saying Barr got it wrong, but the media did.

wing2000 said:

Mueller sent a letter to the AJ Barr in late March:

“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.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...82d3f3d96d5_story.html?utm_term=.cb3cf462f911


Adding the Mueller's March 27th letter released on May 1st: Read Mueller's letter to Attorney General William Barr

Click to expand...

Waaaaaaahh!!!!



Just like the 2016 presidential election, we didn't get the results we wanted!!!!

It's time for people to grow up and move on.

bhsmte said:

Maybe, but if he is so concerned about how media and public is perceiving any summary, why not give it a look?

Click to expand...

Because the concern only surfaced after Barr’s misleading report.

Baffled by that after the fact reaction and also him not doing what a prosecuter does, make a call on whether the evidence merits charges. Punting that, to the AG, when mueller was brought in to be independent, just doesnt add up.

Click to expand...

That’s really been explained ad nauseum...

Mueller felt bound by the OLC rules that a sitting president cannot be indicted. He further explained that, that being the case, it is unjust to even recommend that charges be brought, as it robs the accused of his ‘day in court’ in front of his accuser.

And he explains that his ‘punt’ was more towards the Congress than to the AG, as they are the appropriate body to deal with the obstruction he outlined...

So in Muellers letter to Barr:

And a short time afterwards - the full report was released, a less redacted was supplied to Congress and an almost fully redacted version is available to congress who want to see it.

And the hysterical Democratic leaders are screaming foul.

Why? Barr did EXACTLY what Mueller suggested and then some. And the whole world can read the report.

And yet the feigned rage continues.

Allandavid said:

Because the concern only surfaced after Barr’s misleading report.



That’s really been explained ad nauseum...

Mueller felt bound by the OLC rules that a sitting president cannot be indicted. He further explained that, that being the case, it is unjust to even recommend that charges be brought, as it robs the accused of his ‘day in court’ in front of his accuser.

And he explains that his ‘punt’ was more towards the Congress than to the AG, as they are the appropriate body to deal with the obstruction he outlined...

Click to expand...

Mueller felt bound by the OLC rules that a sitting president cannot be indicted

Click to expand...

“Bound”? How many inaccurate themes do you intend to express in this thread?

No, he did not feel “bound,” or at least if he did, that is not what he said in the Report. Mueller very clearly said in the Report the OLC was a “consideration,” that’s different from being “bound.”

Second, presently, AG Barr has stated, repeatedly, Mueller told Barr that this is not an instance in which he (Mueller) would have made a prosecutorial decision “but for” the OLC memo. This remark has yet to be refuted, contested, or disputed by Mueller.

Your espousing another alternate universe narrative, a parallel alternate reality of alleging Barr lied, to which you’ve never substantiated, and now the Oz like claim Mueller was “bound” by the OLC.

yougottabekidding said:

So in Muellers letter to Barr:

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.
​

And a short time afterwards - the full report was released,

Click to expand...

No, it wasn’t. Those “executive summaries”, which Mueller considered important to the public’s understanding, weren’t released...

a less redacted was supplied to Congress and an almost fully redacted version is available to congress who want to see it.

And the hysterical Democratic leaders are screaming foul.

Why? Barr did EXACTLY what Mueller suggested and then some. And the whole world can read the report.

And yet the feigned rage continues.

Click to expand...

The “outrage”, as you characterise it, has a lot to do with the manner in which Barr, and through him the White House, have been able to commandeer the initial impact of the report. By dishonestly coming out with a ‘nothing to see here, the President is innocent’ summation, Barr has enabled Trump to establish, for a considerable period of time, a meme that suggests that Mueller found no wrong-doing. And we now know that was not the case.

Now, you might claim that, since the report will eventually see the light of day, that people will gradually know the truth. Oh, that it were so.....as we have seen on multiple occasions, however, those who support Trump will swallow whatever line he feeds them and will consequently treat any subsequent evidence as ‘fake news’...

bhsmte said:

Maybe, but if he is so concerned about how media and public is perceiving any summary, why not give it a look?

Baffled by that after the fact reaction and also him not doing what a prosecuter does, make a call on whether the evidence merits charges. Punting that, to the AG, when mueller was brought in to be independent, just doesnt add up.

Click to expand...

bhsmte said:

Mueller also declined to review barr's summary letter, when given the chance.

If he is so concerned with how his report was initially summarized, why not at least review barr's summary?

It is moot now, since the full report is out, but that baffles me a bit.

Click to expand...

RocksInMyHead said:

Maybe he trusted Barr to summarize it honestly?

Click to expand...

Okay, le say Mueller did have gander at Barr’s 4-pager, he would’ve seen how it conflicted with his opinions as to the conclusions and (presumedly) would have said so...but then there’d be no “paper trail”, as Meuller wouldn’t have had to resort to writing his letter to Barr.

This tell me that Meuller doesn’t trust Barr, seeing the eventuality of the complaint he ended up sending to Barr.

Pommer said:

Okay, le say Mueller did have gander at Barr’s 4-pager, he would’ve seen how it conflicted with his opinions as to the conclusions and (presumedly) would have said so...but then there’d be no “paper trail”, as Meuller wouldn’t have had to resort to writing his letter to Barr.

This tell me that Meuller doesn’t trust Barr, seeing the eventuality of the complaint he ended up sending to Barr.

Click to expand...

Maybe their is a bit of lack of trustbon both ends. There is clearly a difference of opinion on legal theories, which is not unusual with lawyers.