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

[bendejo]

19 hours ago, heybruce said:

20 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.

 

I think Hannity had Ollie's baby.

 

 

[Langsuan Man]

One thing Trumper's can't explain is how for two long years not one leak came out of the Muller Investigation, yet after the Trump appointed Attorney General, issued his summary, that he later claimed wasn't a summary, the leaks started happening 

 

Coincidence, I think not

[wayned]

[elmrfudd]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

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

so another anonymous source proves what precisely?

 

a team of partisan lawyers writing summaries, how could it possibly be biased...?

[elmrfudd]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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.

when did i ever say I wanted to "hide" a report?

other than following the rules under 6e of course,

which i assume you would like to ignore.

[heybruce]

7 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

so another anonymous source proves what precisely?

 

a team of partisan lawyers writing summaries, how could it possibly be biased...?

Your reply has nothing to do with my post.

 

Let me make it very clear for you:  If Obama had acted as suspiciously as Trump, you would have been screaming for his head.

[watcharacters]

23 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

We've been told on here for two years that the report would mean the end of Trump. I doubt there will be any "bang" at the end of the ticking. Just another fail for the anti Trumpers, to add to all the rest.

 

I wouldn't count on that!

 

 

[elmrfudd]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

Your reply has nothing to do with my post.

 

Let me make it very clear for you:  If Obama had acted as suspiciously as Trump, you would have been screaming for his head.

thank you for the unfounded assumptions.

 

so if Obama met with a communist dictator and went to a baseball game or whispered to a Russian diplomat that he would have more flexibility after the

election, or refused to help Ukraine after being invaded by Russia, or sent pallets of cash to a regime that funds terrorism, these would not be "suspicious"

 

good to know you aren't horribly biased.

 

 

[elmrfudd]

2 minutes ago, watcharacters said:

 

I wouldn't count on that!

 

 

i am sure you won't ever give up hope of getting your desired result regardless of what reality is.

[watcharacters]

4 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

i am sure you won't ever give up hope of getting your desired result regardless of what reality is.

 

PLease be so informative as to tell me what my "desired result" is?

 

 

[wayned]

11 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

when did i ever say I wanted to "hide" a report?

other than following the rules under 6e of course,

which i assume you would like to ignore.

People seem to be comparing apples and oranges.  Ken Starr was an independent consul and reported to a panel of three judges, not the attorney general.  At the conclusion of the investigation it was the judges decision to turn over the whole mess to congress.

 

Mueller is a special consul and reports to Barr.  His final report has to be submitted to Barr for evaluation and on-forwarding to congress and the public.  Unfortunately, other than any disagreements from the co9nculsions or denial of any of Mueller's requests, what he releases is totally up to him.  Since he is a political appointee of trump and interviewed with his 19 page letter I doubt that we will see anything that implicates trump in any way.  Nadler's subpoena could be held up in courts for months, possibly years, and it will be interesting if Mueller testifies in congress if he will reveal any damning information since trump has not been charged.

[elmrfudd]

1 minute ago, watcharacters said:

 

PLease be so informative as to tell me what my "desired result" is?

 

 

trump out of office would be the obvious one, but if I am wrong, great.

[watcharacters]

6 minutes ago, wayned said:

People seem to be comparing apples and oranges.  Ken Starr was an independent consul and reported to a panel of three judges, not the attorney general.  At the conclusion of the investigation it was the judges decision to turn over the whole mess to congress.

 

Mueller is a special consul and reports to Barr.  His final report has to be submitted to Barr for evaluation and on-forwarding to congress and the public.  Unfortunately, other than any disagreements from the co9nculsions or denial of any of Mueller's requests, what he releases is totally up to him.  Since he is a political appointee of trump and interviewed with his 19 page letter I doubt that we will see anything that implicates trump in any way.  Nadler's subpoena could be held up in courts for months, possibly years, and it will be interesting if Mueller testifies in congress if he will reveal any damning information since trump has not been charged.

 

 

"Elmer seems to be very loose with his accusations and reality.

 

Desperation?

 

 

[mikebike]

2 hours 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.  

I think a legitimate check can originate from a dubious source. The defining characteristic for the start of an investigation should be a professional determination of probable cause, not the sketchyness of the source.

[elmrfudd]

15 minutes ago, mikebike said:

I think a legitimate check can originate from a dubious source. The defining characteristic for the start of an investigation should be a professional determination of probable cause, not the sketchyness of the source.

yes, please let me know where the "professional" determination of probable cause was

[jcsmith]

The disturbing thing here is that the claim is that the Mueller team prepared a lengthy summary of cleared information that was meant to the public and more damning to Trump on obstruction. But Barr choose not to release that and to instead release his own 4 page summary and still hasn't released theirs. The DOJ did not deny that this summary was written by the Mueller team in their response today. If this turns out to be true, then it's pretty obvious why Barr was Trump's choice. Not that it wasn't already.

[thaibeachlovers]

22 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

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

He and Reagan should have been bunkmates in a cell for life.

[thaibeachlovers]

22 hours ago, heybruce said:

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

Can  those members be trusted not to leak it? IMO it would be leaked about 1 minute after they got their hands on it. I have no problem with them getting a copy with details that should not be leaked, even if it is more than a public release would be.

I have seen some of those committee members on tv and I wouldn't trust them to walk my dog, if I had one.

[stevenl]

42 minutes ago, DonDoRondo said:

Perhaps if there was a coverup on the findings Mueller might be speaking up?  Or is he in on it too?

                                            

 

                                                

Muller has not been speaking up at all during the whole process, so seems unlikely he will speak up now.

[Jingthing]

Muller has not been speaking up at all during the whole process, so seems unlikely he will speak up now.

Congress will likely call on him for questioning.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[stevenl]

Just now, Jingthing said:

Congress will likely call on him for questioning.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Thanks, and likely he will speak the truth, but unrelated to my comment.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, elmrfudd said:

thank you for the unfounded assumptions.

 

so if Obama met with a communist dictator and went to a baseball game or whispered to a Russian diplomat that he would have more flexibility after the

election, or refused to help Ukraine after being invaded by Russia, or sent pallets of cash to a regime that funds terrorism, these would not be "suspicious"

 

good to know you aren't horribly biased.

As explained in the post you are desperately ignoring, to rise to the level suspicious actions that Trump engaged in would require:

 

" 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. "

 

Trumpies are still going nuts of over the State Department under Hillary Clinton providing a routine approval, along with many other government departments, of the sell of a uranium company.  If anything like the above had happened, Trumpies and Faux news pundits would have had a stroke.

[wayned]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Can  those members be trusted not to leak it? IMO it would be leaked about 1 minute after they got their hands on it. I have no problem with them getting a copy with details that should not be leaked, even if it is more than a public release would be.

I have seen some of those committee members on tv and I wouldn't trust them to walk my dog, if I had one.

If it was released unredacted to the House intelligence committee, Devin Nunes would immediately run to the white house with a copy but who cares

[heybruce]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Can  those members be trusted not to leak it? IMO it would be leaked about 1 minute after they got their hands on it. I have no problem with them getting a copy with details that should not be leaked, even if it is more than a public release would be.

I have seen some of those committee members on tv and I wouldn't trust them to walk my dog, if I had one.

You do not deny Congress its constitutional right and responsibility of executive oversight because there might be a leak.  Besides, Congress is leak-proof compared to the Trump administration.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK 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.

 

He could be refusing to release them to elicit just such a reaction from the haters. I'm sure he enjoys a good wind up. It may be the only pleasure he gets from being POTUS.

[Chomper Higgot]

9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Can  those members be trusted not to leak it? IMO it would be leaked about 1 minute after they got their hands on it. I have no problem with them getting a copy with details that should not be leaked, even if it is more than a public release would be.

I have seen some of those committee members on tv and I wouldn't trust them to walk my dog, if I had one.

I don’t recall you having had a problem when Nunes was ‘leaking’ stuff handed to him by the White House.

[elmrfudd]

16 minutes ago, heybruce said:

As explained in the post you are desperately ignoring, to rise to the level suspicious actions that Trump engaged in would require:

 

" 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. "

 

Trumpies are still going nuts of over the State Department under Hillary Clinton providing a routine approval, along with many other government departments, of the sell of a uranium company.  If anything like the above had happened, Trumpies and Faux news pundits would have had a stroke.

again, more biased opinions and assumptions, and meaningless

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

12 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

He could be refusing to release them to elicit just such a reaction from the haters. I'm sure he enjoys a good wind up. It may be the only pleasure he gets from being POTUS.

 

Or, he doesn't want to be further exposed as a tax fraud, cheat and liar.... Take your pick...

 

Never has produced any actual documentation/proof that any of his federal tax returns are actually under IRS audit at the present time.... 

 

It's pretty obvious to most people, there's a reason he hasn't done that, and that's that he probably has no such proof.  Just Trump lying again.

 

[elmrfudd]

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I don’t recall you having had a problem when Nunes was ‘leaking’ stuff handed to him by the White House.

what was handed to him by the white house precisely?

[jcsmith]

17 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

He could be refusing to release them to elicit just such a reaction from the haters. I'm sure he enjoys a good wind up. It may be the only pleasure he gets from being POTUS.

I suppose he could also be a superhero in his off hours. The likelihood of that being true is next to nil. He's held off releasing them for three years now using false grounds. There is a reason for that and it has nothing to do with winding people up. The fact that he has claimed he's under audit and will release gladly after the audit, and then yet years go by and now is willing to fight to keep them from going public almost certainly means that there is either embarrassing or incriminating (or both) that may come from them being released.