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

[elmrfudd]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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.

 

thanks for the condescension and arrogance,

 

anyone with common sense sees the entire saga for what it is.

a political invention created with lies and innuendos.

 

years of aggressive partisan investigations and it came up short of the

intended goal.

 

but you may enjoy your bedtime stories regardless.

[Patriot1066]

2 hours ago, mikebike said:

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...

But Trump is innocent all the same?

 

Even after the whole dems movement trying to find well, what wasn’t there!

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

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.

 

Why should Mueller care, he knows two things:

 

1. His report will become public.

2. To which investigators he distributed the investigations of the multiple crimes he uncovered. 

 

From the start Trump set about trying to shutdown the investigation, only a fool would believe that Mueller did not understand this and respond accordingly.

 

OK, I accept we have a surplus of illiberal fools on this forum, but read what they say and understand their only concern is hiding the truth.

 

The truth will out!

 

[Patriot1066]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Why should Mueller care, he knows two things:

 

1. His report will become public.

2. To which investigators he distributed the investigations of the multiple crimes he uncovered. 

 

From the start Trump set about trying to shutdown the investigation, only a fool would believe that Mueller did not understand this and respond accordingly.

 

OK, I accept we have a surplus of illiberal fools on this forum, but read what they say and understand their only concern is hiding the truth.

 

The truth will out!

 

Truth seems to me that after millions of dollars in cost and major political send pressure Electrd President Trump was innocent. But that’s not a surprise it was obvious he is a Patriot and would not hurt his country.

 

No Trump vindicated so the NY times should apologise.

[Chomper Higgot]

12 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

thanks for the condescension and arrogance,

 

anyone with common sense sees the entire saga for what it is.

a political invention created with lies and innuendos.

 

years of aggressive partisan investigations and it came up short of the

intended goal.

 

but you may enjoy your bedtime stories regardless.

Anyone with common sense understand that if you haven't read a report you cannot be sure of what is in it. 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, Patriot1066 said:

Truth seems to me that after millions of dollars in cost and major political send pressure Electrd President Trump was innocent. But that’s not a surprise it was obvious he is a Patriot and would not hurt his country.

 

No Trump vindicated so the NY times should apologise.

When we have read the report we'll know if there is any basis for your idea of wha the truth is. 

[Patriot1066]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

When we have read the report we'll know if there is any basis for your idea of wha the truth is. 

Well the summary was quiet clear and if there was some wrong doing it would have no doubt have been leaked, as the investigation leaked like a cullinder with extra holes!

 

God bless Elected President Trump a true Patriot, and an innocent one at that despite the Dems dirty tricks.

 

Just wait until his second term he will be even greater.

[elmrfudd]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

When we have read the report we'll know if there is any basis for your idea of wha the truth is. 

or yours

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, Patriot1066 said:

Well the summary was quiet clear and if there was some wrong doing it would have no doubt have been leaked, as the investigation leaked like a cullinder with extra holes!

 

God bless Elected President Trump a true Patriot, and an innocent one at that despite the Dems dirty tricks.

 

Just wait until his second term he will be even greater.

We'll discuss again when we have the report. 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, elmrfudd said:

or yours

I agree entirely. 

 

Let's all see the report. 

[elmrfudd]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I agree entirely. 

 

Let's all see the report. 

prediction:

 

there will be parts redacted required by rule 6e, and you will claim a cover up.

[stevenl]

4 minutes ago, Patriot1066 said:

Well the summary was quiet clear and if there was some wrong doing it would have no doubt have been leaked, as the investigation leaked like a cullinder with extra holes!

 

God bless Elected President Trump a true Patriot, and an innocent one at that despite the Dems dirty tricks.

 

Just wait until his second term he will be even greater.

We may disagree, but please stick to the truth.

The investigation did not leak. That may change if according to the investigators the conclusions of it are kept from the public.

[ballpoint]

The Trump supporters' argument:  The report clearly states that Trump is totally innocent, even though nobody, other than someone he appointed, has read it, and despite what some who actually took part in the investigation are saying to the contrary.  You'll have to take our word on it though, because the report on this innocent man, who is totally above suspicion, can not be released, due to all the other criminal investigations currently focusing on him.

 

 

 

[Thakkar]

4 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

4 hours 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

 

I was a lethargic teen. More than most, I mean. My mom, as she is wont to do, suspected I was shooting heroin and searched my room. No heroin, but she found my weed stash instead, and demanded to know why I‘d picked up such a disgusting habit.

 

My response: “why were you even in my room, mom?”

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, Patriot1066 said:

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

In other words, you can't think of a single reason why Congressional intelligence committees should see the full report.  The cost of doing so would be trivial.

[heybruce]

6 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.

Really?  How much material has Mueller's team leaked so far?

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, Patriot1066 said:

Truth seems to me that after millions of dollars in cost and major political send pressure Electrd President Trump was innocent. But that’s not a surprise it was obvious he is a Patriot and would not hurt his country.

 

No Trump vindicated so the NY times should apologise.

The report clearly stated that he was not exonerated of obstruction of justice, so I agree with your last statement; however I believe you meant it to read "No Trump vindication..."

 

Why should the New York Times apologize?

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

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

 

3 hours 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

 

3 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

thanks for the condescension and arrogance,

 

anyone with common sense sees the entire saga for what it is.

a political invention created with lies and innuendos.

 

years of aggressive partisan investigations and it came up short of the

intended goal.

 

but you may enjoy your bedtime stories regardless.

Had Obama been cozying up to a foreign power (Iran, for example) he had had past business dealings with, was attempting to do future business with, ignoring past crimes, calling for better relations, and stating he trusted the leadership of that power more than the he trusts his own intelligence agencies, you would have been screaming for investigations.

[Tug]

Foe me all I have to do is recall some of trumps(greatest hits)disrespecting pows attacking gold star family’s attacking nato throwing allies under the buss blabbing state secrets to the Russians in the Oval Office no less n Korea the Finland fiasco and on and on and on of course any rite minded person would be highly suspicious realease the report allready 

[wayned]

21 hours ago, Tug said:

Oh I’m sure it will come out eventually meanwhile Donald is out there screaming no collusion no obstruction trying to run the news cycle

That's Trumps whole game , delay it as long as possible and continue to induce chaos in his administration to change to news cycle daily and it will go away.  He's already doing the "moon walk" on closing the border, and does anybody even remember Jamal Khashoggi?

[elmrfudd]

8 hours ago, ballpoint said:

The Trump supporters' argument:  The report clearly states that Trump is totally innocent, even though nobody, other than someone he appointed, has read it, and despite what some who actually took part in the investigation are saying to the contrary.  You'll have to take our word on it though, because the report on this innocent man, who is totally above suspicion, can not be released, due to all the other criminal investigations currently focusing on him.

 

 

 

who is the "some" precisely? and what are these "other" "criminal" investigations? and what crimes are you referring to?

 

details please, not hearsay or a rumor.

[mikebike]

10 hours ago, Patriot1066 said:

But Trump is innocent all the same?

 

Even after the whole dems movement trying to find well, what wasn’t there!

Then great. At least due diligence was done.

[mikebike]

10 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

yeah, some one edited my post, and it wasn't me.

 

here the actual statutes

 

Barr highlighted Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which provides that an attorney for the government must not disclose a “matter occurring before the grand jury”—though with some relevant exceptions that Barr did not discuss. Many reasons exist for grand jury secrecy – to prevent flight of a target, to insure deliberations free from interference, to prevent witness tampering, to promote candor from witnesses, and to protect the reputations of those under investigation who are not ultimately charged. See United States v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 681, n. 6 (1959). As an “attorney for the government,” Barr has a legal obligation to comply with the rule.

 

ultimately this is the law whether you like or not, sorry to disappoint you

Why would this disappoint me? I was looking for more info.

 

The relevant disclosure rules are interesting but dense for a non-lawyer. It will be an epic legal battle if things go that far.

 

Rule 6(e)(2), Fed.R.Crim.P.,

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_6

[elmrfudd]

57 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Why would this disappoint me? I was looking for more info.

 

The relevant disclosure rules are interesting but dense for a non-lawyer. It will be an epic legal battle if things go that far.

 

Rule 6(e)(2), Fed.R.Crim.P.,

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_6

the entire saga is a political assassination attempt. it was never anything but that.

 

 

[mikebike]

2 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

the entire saga is a political assassination attempt. it was never anything but that.

 

 

Or it is a legitimate check and balance and should be applied to questionable conduct of every administration. Nothing to fear if nothing is hinky.

[elmrfudd]

3 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Or it is a legitimate check and balance and should be applied to questionable conduct of every administration. Nothing to fear if nothing is hinky.

a legitimate check isn't started and paid for by the opposing candidate in an election. A legitimate check isn't using Stephen Halper

to entrap people at the direction of gov't agencies. A legitimate check does not utilize an unverified dossier as a basis to spy on 

american citizens.  

[lannarebirth]

2 hours ago, wayned said:

That's Trumps whole game , delay it as long as possible and continue to induce chaos in his administration to change to news cycle daily and it will go away.  He's already doing the "moon walk" on closing the border, and does anybody even remember Jamal Khashoggi?

 

"Moon walk"; that's pretty funny.  

[metisdead]

A post commenting on moderation has been removed as well as the replies. 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, elmrfudd said:

a legitimate check isn't started and paid for by the opposing candidate in an election. A legitimate check isn't using Stephen Halper

to entrap people at the direction of gov't agencies. A legitimate check does not utilize an unverified dossier as a basis to spy on 

american citizens.  

Refer to the above link:  https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1093311-some-in-muellers-team-see-report-as-more-damaging-to-trump-than-barr-summary-new-york-times/?do=findComment&comment=14010569

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

who is the "some" precisely? and what are these "other" "criminal" investigations? and what crimes are you referring to?

 

details please, not hearsay or a rumor.

All of a sudden you flip from wanting to hide a report to demanding details.

 

What a mess you have as a foundation for your arguments.