Some in Mueller's team see report as more damaging to Trump than Barr summary: New York Times

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

I obviously don't know what's in the full special counsel report, although Mueller himself apparently didn't find enough to either file or recommend filing criminal charges against Trump himself (which is not necessarily any kind of exoneration). But you have to figure, whatever it is is worse for Trump than what Barr's 4 page summary suggests.

 

This kind of playbook is typical of Trump, get out in front and announce some news (via Barr in this case), and have the world and the media and the public have to rely on that for some time... Until finally, the truth begins to leak out and reality begins to set in -- kinda like Trump's supposed big deal with NK to denuclearize and all that was purported to be, which in the end, turned out to be very little.

 

But Trump got lots of news cycles out of it, and created the perception among the undiscerning public that he had accomplished something major. Later, it turned out to be not so major at all. But it still left a lasting impression.  Same as the case with the Mueller report here.  Whatever's negative toward Trump in it, given all the time until something more complete is finally made public, his base will likely forever hang their hats on his false claim that he was totally vindicated.

 

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You know very well that the report can't be released without redactions for legal reasons, so perhaps you can stop with the deflections.

It can be released to Congressional intelligence committees without redactions.  You don't object to that, do you?

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

That<deleted>, <deleted> POS Ollie North is practically a saint now in the circles he travels in.

The Faux News circles.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

39 minutes ago, heybruce said:

It can be released to Congressional intelligence committees without redactions. 

 

It can be. It should be. But whether it will be is going to be interesting to see play out...

 

And the extent to which Trump and Barr either allow that to happen, or put up roadblocks and obstructions in various ways.

 

Previously, Trump had been publicly saying the report should be made public. But in the latest news cycle, he was popping up with comments that seemed to suggest he was having second thoughts. Kinda like promising he'd release his federal tax returns, and then and then and then.....

 

[DoctorG]

You guys have no patience at all. Just wait another 2 weeks and if the report is not out, then I might even join you in complaining.

[rudi49jr]

Why do you think it's taking Barr more than two weeks to 'redact' the Mueller report? I'm guessing there's a lot of dirt in there that needs to be swept under the carpet.

[Chomper Higgot]

6 hours ago, riclag said:

 

No surprise,They should come forward,why hide!

Why hide what?

 

The contents of the report?!

 

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Really, I'm shocked ( not ). Entirely predictable.

Having lost the chance to keep the investigation going till the election, the plan is apparently to keep insinuating that there is "something" there that hasn't come out. I don't expect them to actually say what that "something" is. Smoke and mirrors.

Publish the report.

 

No smoke, no mirrors. 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, riclag said:

Sure it has Mueller confirmed it 

Barr told you Mueller confirmed it. 

 

Not quite the same thing, as you will come to learn. 

[elmrfudd]

7 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

The current narrative is that trump was told that there were no indictments in the Mueller Report, so he and his minions popped the corks.

 

Slowly, advisors got through to trump with the details within the Mueller Report, hence the flip-flop and need to hide the report.

 

It will come out, and it will be hugely damaging. Not sure on a strategy? Normally I'd say let it out and then deal with it, but suspect they'll string it out for as long as possible and hope it doesn't leak. SCOTUS would allow the release or risk losing all credibility.

blathering assumptions based on nothing, unless of course you know this to be fact, somehow

[elmrfudd]

1 hour ago, rudi49jr said:

Why do you think it's taking Barr more than two weeks to 'redact' the Mueller report? I'm guessing there's a lot of dirt in there that needs to be swept under the carpet.

perhaps to follow the laws and statutes protecting grand jury information?

 

or we could just throw out idiotic assumptions based on nothing....wait, you already have

[Proboscis]

5 hours ago, mikebike said:

Easy for the GOP to put a stop to that strategy. Release the vindicating report and shut the Dems up now.

Trouble is that the report will not show that the president and others have been vindicated. Expect to see huge redactions concerning embarassing facts about "others" where those others could be the president or his family members or in-laws. But eventually those will out anyway. Better to bite the bullet now and let it all out (except for the processes and sources that have to be kept secret) long before the election in 2020 rather than the drip-drip which could result in a flood just before the election in 2020!

[mikebike]

13 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

perhaps to follow the laws and statutes protecting grand jury information?

The second time you have posted this without any corroboration... Can you elaborate on which laws would be violated? Or even why anything to do with how Grand Jury laws and statutes would affect Special Council investigations? 

[riclag]

3 minutes ago, Proboscis said:

Trouble is that the report will not show that the president and others have been vindicated. Expect to see huge redactions concerning embarassing facts about "others" where those others could be the president or his family members or in-laws. But eventually those will out anyway. Better to bite the bullet now and let it all out (except for the processes and sources that have to be kept secret) long before the election in 2020 rather than the drip-drip could result in a flood just before the election in 2020!

You might have something there ! Rudy has been saying he has amassed 87 page rebuttal, of the embarrassing accusations!I'm happy you agree on some of the rules!  

[mikebike]

Ah... Rudy and Donald...

 

A match made in heaven!

[Boon Mee]

If there was any damaging material on Trump in the Mueller report you can be sure it would have been leaked by now.

[elmrfudd]

34 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

perhaps to follow the laws and statutes protecting grand jury information?

 

 

The second time you have posted this without any corroboration... Can you elaborate on which laws would be violated? Or even why anything to do with how Grand Jury laws and statutes would affect Special Council investigations? 

 

 

ok, here you go:

 

The Attorney General’s second letter regarding Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report stated that the report will be released to Congress and the public after Barr and his staff have made “redactions that are required.” He lists four categories for redaction: (1) grand jury material; (2) material that potentially compromises intelligence source and methods; (3) material that could affect “ongoing matters,” including ones the Special Counsel has referred to other parts of the Justice Department; and (4) “information that would unduly infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties.” While any one of those categories might be interpreted broadly enough to conceal large swaths of Mueller’s findings, grand jury material is one that permits Barr great discretion in defining its scope.

 

https://www.justsecurity.org/63470/how-barr-may-interpret-what-it-means-to-withhold-grand-jury-information/

 

 

 

 

have a nice day

[Patriot1066]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

It can be released to Congressional intelligence committees without redactions.  You don't object to that, do you?

Just more Trump haters proved wrong what a waste of taxpayers money!

[mikebike]

52 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

If there was any damaging material on Trump in the Mueller report you can be sure it would have been leaked by now.

You are right! Mueller and his team have been leaking worse than the white house for the past 2 yrs... leaking all over the place... Or not.

[mikebike]

44 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

34 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

perhaps to follow the laws and statutes protecting grand jury information?

 

 

The second time you have posted this without any corroboration... Can you elaborate on which laws would be violated? Or even why anything to do with how Grand Jury laws and statutes would affect Special Council investigations? 

 

 

ok, here you go:

 

The Attorney General’s second letter regarding Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report stated that the report will be released to Congress and the public after Barr and his staff have made “redactions that are required.” He lists four categories for redaction: (1) grand jury material; (2) material that potentially compromises intelligence source and methods; (3) material that could affect “ongoing matters,” including ones the Special Counsel has referred to other parts of the Justice Department; and (4) “information that would unduly infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties.” While any one of those categories might be interpreted broadly enough to conceal large swaths of Mueller’s findings, grand jury material is one that permits Barr great discretion in defining its scope.

 

https://www.justsecurity.org/63470/how-barr-may-interpret-what-it-means-to-withhold-grand-jury-information/

 

 

 

 

have a nice day

Thank you.

 

Good read.

 

The first thing I noticed is this letter has nothing to do with any law or statute. It is a statement by A.G. Barr.

 

Second was this statement in regards to the second letter:

"While rules govern grand jury secrecy, they contain room for interpretation. Barr’s very decision to engage in this process to keep parts of the report hidden from Congress is a danger sign. If Barr is using grand jury secrecy rules as a shield to prevent disclosure of the Mueller report, he may find himself suffering blowback from Congress and the public"

 

Ultimately this link is not a rock-solid vindication of your interpretation, it mainly focuses on the questionabilty of A.G. Barr's process...

[mikebike]

37 minutes ago, Patriot1066 said:

Just more Trump haters proved wrong what a waste of taxpayers money!

Except for the fact the investigations took in more dosh than they spent...

[elmrfudd]

3 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Except for the fact the investigations took in more dosh than they spent...

perhaps the real waste was the false pretense it was started under and the intentional attempt to

destroy a duly elected president by un elected govt personnel

[Skallywag]

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

3 hours ago, mikebike said:

The second time you have posted this without any corroboration... Can you elaborate on which laws would be violated? Or even why anything to do with how Grand Jury laws and statutes would affect Special Council investigations? 

 

If I understand correctly, one of the issues relating to the contents of the special counsel report is it may contain contents of private grand jury testimony that normally is not made public.  To what extent any of that is in the report, however, I don't think we know at this point.

 

At any rate, from what I've been reading on the legal front, it would be legally possible for the Justice Department or maybe even others, including Congress, to petition the judge or court that oversaw the grand jury proceedings to waive or lift the secrecy provisions, if that was going to become an issue.

 

There are other elements that could also come into play in terms of potential report redactions -- info that would reveal confidential intelligence agency sources and methods, info that might unnecessarily damage peripheral 3rd party individuals, and perhaps potentially some claims of presidential executive privilege, though whether the latter claim is going to be asserted I think remains unclear.

 

One might think that Mueller, being the experienced law enforcement veteran that he is, and mindful that his report could / should become publicly released at some point, would have written it in a way so as to minimize or avoid those obvious kinds of redaction issues/problems while still laying out his findings and the basis for them... Time will tell....

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

1 hour ago, Skallywag said:

 

I believe, responding to a Congressional committee's new request to review many back years of his federal tax returns, Trump in the past day or so has again asserted his past returns remain "under audit." And thus he doesn't want them to be released to anyone.

 

And yet, he's refused to provide any official documentation to anyone actually showing that the IRS really is still engaged in any kind of audit of his tax returns, and if so, for what years. And, I believe, the IRS has publicly said that having one's tax returns under audit in no way legally prevents the filer from sharing their tax return info if they choose to.

 

[elmrfudd]

they will never stop, they have nothing, but they will try to invent something nonstop.

 

fortunately, most people with a shred of common sense see right through it

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

If there was any damaging material on Trump in the Mueller report you can be sure it would have been leaked by now.

So we should rely on leaks rather than reading for ourselves.

 

Illiberal develops whole new philosophy of logic.

 

Doh!

[Chomper Higgot]

10 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

they will never stop, they have nothing, but they will try to invent something nonstop.

 

fortunately, most people with a shred of common sense see right through it

I agree entirely. 

 

Until we have the Mueller report we have nothing. 

 

But then, neither do you. 

 

I'm an adult, I like to read for myself, if you are happy for Barr to read you bedtime stories, up2U.

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So we should rely on leaks rather than reading for ourselves.

 

Illiberal develops whole new philosophy of logic.

 

 

No leaks of the report. But we did have this in the latest news cycle from the NYT:

 

Quote

 

Some on Mueller’s Team Say Report Was More Damaging Than Barr Revealed

WASHINGTON — Some of Robert S. Mueller III’s investigators have told associates that Attorney General William P. Barr failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry and that they were more troubling for President Trump than Mr. Barr indicated, according to government officials and others familiar with their simmering frustrations.

At stake in the dispute — the first evidence of tension between Mr. Barr and the special counsel’s office — is who shapes the public’s initial understanding of one of the most consequential government investigations in American history. Some members of Mr. Mueller’s team are concerned that, because Mr. Barr created the first narrative of the special counsel’s findings, Americans’ views will have hardened before the investigation’s conclusions become public.

 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/03/us/politics/william-barr-mueller-report.html

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

I don't know what went on behind the scenes. But it remains curious to me why Mueller seemingly allowed Barr to write and release his own summary of Mueller's report, supposedly without Mueller's direct involvement, when I presume Mueller could have insisted that his version of a summary at least be included in whatever Barr was going to publicly release. I'm sure we'll hear more on that point eventually down the road.