I’m not sure if you have read Barr’s comments he made on the investigation immediately before his taking the AG’s office. If not, please do. You will clearly see where my skepticism comes from.
The Mueller Report
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
I’m not sure if you have read Barr’s comments he made on the investigation immediately before his taking the AG’s office. If not, please do. You will clearly see where my skepticism comes from.
You might be thinking that I was talking about the Mueller report, but I was talking Barr’s memo.
I have lots of personal biases that are present in this conversation, they're just different from the majority of the most vocal American politics commentators in here and hence treated with suspicion. That's one of the things I think people should reflect on after this report. As opposed to suspecting alternative views are driven by some hidden agenda, a Trump supporter in disguise, maybe they just interpret the facts differently. The investigation has clearly shown there's a very different interpretation than the majority viewpoint on here, that is also entirely reasonable.
Here's a few biases. I think both the democrat and republican parties do a shit job of representing the American population, and treat everything they do with a shitload of scepticism. Often that's justified, sometimes it's misguided. I think Trump poses a danger to the global population, and want him to have strong opposition. This is another example where the democrats haven't been that, from my subjective perspective. I think facts are more important than emotions, and the successful communication of the most important facts will ultimately result in significant improvements on key issues. That often proves to be wrong but I continue to believe it, because I can't see the whole truth on that particularly tricky subject.
A little bias is expected. A little bias is not what you will find in the speculation in that thread. It's baffling to me that people are so unwilling to accept that when the evidence is right there for everyone to see.
It's not just possible it will go into more detail but inevitable. It's one of the two major components of the report, and the detail Barr has provided is already very clear. There was a case for obstruction of justice. It wasn't a slam dunk, as they often aren't, so There individuals chose not to prosecute. Given there were arguments on both sides, it's entirely likely that the politics of it made people err on the side of caution. In spite of that, the simple fact there is a case is huge. Reading the detail of it will drive that home, undoubtedly.
What is in the Barr summary that we think is possibly untrue? Or alternatively, what significant elements do you think we're excluded from the summary? The detail was excluded, by design. And we already know the detail is explosive on both the Russian interference and obstruction of justice cases, as so much of it has been presented to the public in drip feed. Presumably there will be similarly important, interesting and surprising details still to come. Him not including those details is exactly what you would expect in the report, and thus not justification for that kind of scepticism.
Questioning the legitimacy of the Barr summary appears ridiculous, from my perspective. I don't think it's difficult to see why if you distance yourself from your affiliation, for a moment. The benefits to doing so were outlined quite well here. That's another bias of mine. I wish more people would do that, more often, because I think it's in their country's best interests, and their own individual interests. If the downside of that is appearing robotic, fair enough. It seems better than the alternative extreme, which was very present in here at least on this particular issue.
Barr said he's going to publish the whole report to public and he even said he will seek Mueller's help on what to redact. This grandstanding is unnecessary. Democrats have had a rough weekend.
David Frum said:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...rt-leaves-one-key-question-unanswered/585625/
Do people still believe that Trump was elected because of the Russian interference?
That seems a particularly odd conclusion to come to, at this point. I thought that was just a right wing talking point that exaggerated the general democrat's view. Bizarre that a prominent commentator is adding legitimacy to it in this moment.
It wasn't just Barr who read and wrote that memo. It was Barr, Rosenstein and a bunch of career prosecutors at the justice department who apparently agreed on that conclusion. Rosenstein was prepared to wear a wire to get Trump indicted, what makes you think he is suddenly going to follow Barr and decide not to prosecute him if the evidence suggests otherwise? The longer people hang on to this and other conspiracy theories of a cover up, the bigger the win for Trump. I mean this is exactly the sort of thing the right wing does and gets mocked for with their deep state conspiracies.
Lets first see if that actually happens and isn’t just a way to placate any lingering questions about yesterday’s summary.
He never said the full report, He said he would release as much as possible without falling foul of the law.
Like I wrote, he said he'd seek Mueller's help on what constitutes matter sensitive enough to redact.
Who knows? Are you going to argue one way and then criticise others for arguing the other?
Let's face it the margins were slim in how many states? I wouldn't want to bet on either possibility personally...
What I'd be taking from this is that the report confirms that Russia made a very deliberate effort here. Something that was being laughed off by some of y'all in this forum not that long ago, maybe even you? So it's either it confirms the Russians did this and it clears the president of taking part. Or it's okay to be skeptical about the memo.
I could be here lamenting that and beating my chest about it telling people I told you so, but I won't because what would be the point? It is what it is.
And what will happen to tackle this going forward? Possibly not much. So how will that play out in the future? They have fingerprints over Brexit too, something that has sidetracked this country for over 2 years...
I think this is a pretty accurate feeling at the end of this 2 year investigation.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-...ollusion-and-punted-on-obstruction-of-justice
The one criticism should be that Mueller conveniently passed the buck.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-...ollusion-and-punted-on-obstruction-of-justice
The one criticism should be that Mueller conveniently passed the buck.
I get what you are saying & agree with most of it. But, one cannot dismiss what AG Barr said as a civilian late last year about the probe:
https://www.businessinsider.com/wil...r-investigation-legally-insupportable-2018-12
He was no dummy & changed his stance while being questioned. He sounded far more nuanced & centrist during his confirmation not long after.
It’s hardly tin foil on my dome when I say I want to see the full report. This whole issue shouldn’t rest on a four page memo from someone who is troubling to me. I’m not conspiratorial by the fact that I want to see the unvarnished truth.
Hate to say it, but you might have something in your last sentence.
Sounds like one of Mueller’s team doesn’t agree with Barr’s summation and is advocating the release of the report in full to Congress.
If this is the case, Barr shouldn’t really have made any summary or any conclusions. The SCO was always intended to be independent of the DOJ.
A question of time when the whole thing leaks then?
What evidence Brawned? Barr discredited himself with this summary report.
The full report would have been released if there was nothing to discredit Trump.
That is what is needed
The AG made a definitive conclusion, in less than two days, about a subject that the special prosecutor and his team couldn't make a conclusion about for months and months. And during these two days, the AG had also to read to the full report, understand it, determine what to write about and what not, look at the underlying evidence on the obstruction part of the probe, analyze it, consult with people around him, look at the rules/law/etc, make his determination, prepare a careful letter to congress, etc. All of that in less than 48 hours? No way.
Just to be clear, maybe the outcome wouldn't have changed, but it's hard to believe that one could do so quickly what Mueller and his team couldn't do in months.
Just to be clear, maybe the outcome wouldn't have changed, but it's hard to believe that one could do so quickly what Mueller and his team couldn't do in months.
This has been posted a lot but its not just the AG but the AG, deputy AG and more than dozen career prosecutors working for the justice department who would all have been on this from the get go. Its not impossible that they'd be capable of digesting a 100 page report in two days.
I still find it hard to believe, and I'm not necessarily arguing with outcome.
The obstruction of justice decision by Barr will have been made before the Mueller investigation was ended.
Again, what does Rosenstein or any of the other prosecutors at the justice department gain by co-signing with it?
A lot of people seem annoyed at this, why?
Surely, even if you hate the man, the best outcome for everyone was no collusion?
Surely, even if you hate the man, the best outcome for everyone was no collusion?
No its in response to you suggesting that Barr made his decision before reading the report and stuck to it.
A lot of us got duped by the coverage and we were led to believe this was going to be incredibly damaging for Trump. A couple of examples below
Non stop media coverage talking about collusion
Legal pundits claiming that the obstruction case was a slam dunk against Trump.
Senior ex intelligence community officials going on air and boasting about how Trump's family members were about to be indicted.
Other pundits and "experts" spreading false information which got people even more giddy.
Last edited:
Barr will have been given all the materials related to the obstruction of justice part of the probe. He and Rosenstein will have then reviewed the material, deliberated and come to their conclusions.
Just because the Mueller probe ended a few days ago, it doesn't mean parts of the investigation were not finished weeks/months ago.
Cool, I can agree with that. I thought you were suggesting his decision would have been the same regardless of what the report says.
Kasparov 
He's a complete piece of shit whom in his book "Winter is Coming" alluded he so heavily regretted McCain not winning the presidency in 2008 to continue the great work of GWB of spreading democracy and ideals of the free world in the Middle East to even more countries...He regretted more brown people not dying under freedom bombs of Neocons. Can't wait until this scum rots in hell. He's such a disgusting hypocrite (I've been following this snake for years being a Chess player since childhood), marketing himself as a "Democracy Expert" and "Human Rights Activist". The Azerbaijani Seth Abramson.
Just because you're good at Chess, it doesn't make you a brilliant political mind. Playing chess at a very very high level tends to have its off-effect when you're not playing chess as you're fixated on a subject and see everything through a super paranoid and conspirational lense. Bobby Fischer is a prime example of that. Imagine if he was still alive at today's political climate
He's a complete piece of shit whom in his book "Winter is Coming" alluded he so heavily regretted McCain not winning the presidency in 2008 to continue the great work of GWB of spreading democracy and ideals of the free world in the Middle East to even more countries...He regretted more brown people not dying under freedom bombs of Neocons. Can't wait until this scum rots in hell. He's such a disgusting hypocrite (I've been following this snake for years being a Chess player since childhood), marketing himself as a "Democracy Expert" and "Human Rights Activist". The Azerbaijani Seth Abramson.
Just because you're good at Chess, it doesn't make you a brilliant political mind. Playing chess at a very very high level tends to have its off-effect when you're not playing chess as you're fixated on a subject and see everything through a super paranoid and conspirational lense. Bobby Fischer is a prime example of that. Imagine if he was still alive at today's political climate
I can see that... if true.
I agree with this.
Early on, I was reading more and listing more to analysis about the probe. However, over time, I had less confidence that the probe would find a clear evidence of collusion. The main reason was the following: for nearly two years, Trump, people around him and his supporters in Congress and the media have attacked Mueller and the probe... viciously. 'No collusion" was heard every day. The dominant theory was that Mueller would wait with this and then drop a bombshell about collusion. But, at some point, I starting wondering, if there is at least one person who have colluded with the Russians, why wouldn't the special prosecutor charge him/her? This way, he would be able to silence some of the critics of the probe and, thus, be able to work more freely. When it didn't happen, I started to think that it never would.
Because there's evidence that Russia interfered with the 2016 election. Tying Trump to it, would have been the easiest way out. Just like his base needs simple answers to complex issues, the people who didn't vote for him want those, too. There's also a good chance that he's not going to acknowledge the results of the 2020 election, in case he's going to lose. Hoping that the checks and balances still work, while he's clearly showing signs of an authoritarian, is understandable IMO.
Having read some analysis I really think we're unfortunately not done on obstruction.
The crux of Barrs argument is that the President could not be convicted of obstructing 'the Russia thing ' because there was no evidence of the Russia thing being a crime.
Ie, the President could have fired Comey and told his underlings to lie about Russia (reminder several have plead guilty to that exact thing) but that wouldn't be obstruction because there was no crime in the first place.
To me that's bonkers, like saying you can't be charged with attempting murder if you miss. But obstruction always had weird interpretation in law.
So short story, I bet there's plenty in the report that will sound to lay folk like me to be crimes, but don't get above the threshold for the DOJ.
The crux of Barrs argument is that the President could not be convicted of obstructing 'the Russia thing ' because there was no evidence of the Russia thing being a crime.
Ie, the President could have fired Comey and told his underlings to lie about Russia (reminder several have plead guilty to that exact thing) but that wouldn't be obstruction because there was no crime in the first place.
To me that's bonkers, like saying you can't be charged with attempting murder if you miss. But obstruction always had weird interpretation in law.
So short story, I bet there's plenty in the report that will sound to lay folk like me to be crimes, but don't get above the threshold for the DOJ.
Corrupt as feck.
I fecking knew this prick was going to get away with this.
And me I said countless times that he wouldn't be indited. The way to get him out of power is at the ballot box.
Does anybody take her seriously though. It took me a few programs before I tuned her out.
Agreed, or through Congress at least curbing him but we know that won't happen. So since the details of the report can have a significant influence on public opinion, hopefully Barr releases it in short order or someone leaks it.
Last edited:
February this year she got her biggest numbers
https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjo...-is-no-1-and-so-is-sean-hannity/#2effa87a7730
Liberals have pretty turned into the Conservatives during the Obama years.
Barr ain't releasing shit...