Barr's Book Report On The Mueller Report Is In

Until we see the entire Report we will not know who it exonerates or does not exonerate and for what. A failure to indict is not an exoneration.

Abundantly clear: there is no god.

This is really not so hard. Mueller can't release any of the report but he could be subpoenaed with the simple question "Does Barr's summary accurately reflect what is in the report?" 

Klinker said:

conandrob240 said:
no collusion, no obstruction. Very interesting. I trust that Mueller gave this a fair investigation and that if he didn’t find enough evidence to support it, then it’s done. Really, so much else of what Trump has done/ said is far worse. I prefer to not impeach this President anyway. Let him go out as a loser who couldn’t win a second term. That’ll hurt his ego much more. I am disappointed though that jr and his dopey SIL seem to get out unscathed.

 Its hard to reconcile the contents of Barr's letter with what we know from info that has already been released.  
I wonder whether access to the full report might lead to different conclusions than those drawn by a Twitler appointee in a 4 page letter.

I highly doubt Barr would have spent two days with the document and got the summary incorrect. (Assuming he has decent reading comprehension). The decision on collusion was not open to interpretation. All he had to do with that one was be able to read.  Only obstruction was left open to him to draw his own conclusion.  And I’m guessing that one wasn’t anywhere near a slam dunk which is why Mueller didn’t make the call on that one. Will the report have some not so great stuff to share about Trump and his role? Sure. Probably. But I don’t think we’ll see any new conclusions, if that’s what you are suggesting. I think this case is pretty much closed in terms of any criminal charges, indictments or impeachment. 

Jimmy Dore takes his victory lap.

Barr's letter says that while the Russians did interfere (disinformation and hacking emails), they didn't find that any Trump campaign official "conspired or knowingly coordinated".  So whether you are on the "Trump did it" side or the "Russia didn't do anything" side, you're not getting what you wanted, at least this evening.

A bonfire of the vanities style circus schemed to exploit the the intellectual vulnerabilities of manipulable low IQ individuals. MSNYTfowars at its best.

GL2 said:
Abundantly clear: there is no god.

 Patience.  Let's see what the report actually says.

Also, let's see what Trump does and says.  "Pride goes before disaster, and a haughty spirit before a fall." Proverbs 16:18.

patience? It’s over. If you wanted to see Trump criminally charged, impeached, etc. you aren’t getting that. Continuing to pursue this thing after a thorough investigation says the evidence isn’t there will erode the chance at a Democratic win in 2020. Let’s move on now. There’s plenty we can point fingers at Trump about and plenty of reason he’s unfit to be president even if he did not collude with Russia (or get caught colluding with Russia)

nohero said:

GL2 said:
Abundantly clear: there is no god.

 Patience.  Let's see what the report actually says.
Also, let's see what Trump does and says.  "Pride goes before disaster, and a haughty spirit before a fall." Proverbs 16:18.

 Here's what the report says:

“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

i.e. No Collusion.

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

GL2 said:
Abundantly clear: there is no god.

 Patience.  Let's see what the report actually says.
Also, let's see what Trump does and says.  "Pride goes before disaster, and a haughty spirit before a fall." Proverbs 16:18.

 Here's what the report says:

“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

i.e. No Collusion.

 Thank you comrade Paul.

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

GL2 said:
Abundantly clear: there is no god.

 Patience.  Let's see what the report actually says.
Also, let's see what Trump does and says.  "Pride goes before disaster, and a haughty spirit before a fall." Proverbs 16:18.

 Here's what the report says:

“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

i.e. No Collusion.

 Yes, that's from Barr's letter, and I already provided the more detailed discussion from Barr's letter in my post above.  Doesn't change my suggestion to Mr. GL2.

[Edited to add] Some expert commentary about what Barr's summary does and doesn't mean.

[Barr's summary] would be consistent with, for example, a [Mueller] report that finds lots of “evidence of collusion” that for one reason or another falls short of criminal conduct. It would be consistent with a report that describes conduct that falls short of the criminal standard by the barest of technicalities. It would be consistent with a report that finds that individuals associated with the president’s campaign were aware of the Russian efforts to interfere in the election, welcomed such assistance, and did not in any way warn the American public about it—but who did not take the requisite step of entering into any criminal agreement to assist the effort either. It would also be consistent with a report that suggested that Trump’s principal engagement with the Russians was not over hacked emails at all, but instead about the tower he was negotiating to build in Moscow even as the campaign was going on.

Link.

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

GL2 said:
Abundantly clear: there is no god.

 Patience.  Let's see what the report actually says.
Also, let's see what Trump does and says.  "Pride goes before disaster, and a haughty spirit before a fall." Proverbs 16:18.

 Here's what the report says:

“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

i.e. No Collusion.

 Maybe we need to say it again:    No Collusion

Dennis_Seelbach said:
 Thank you comrade Paul.

 This is despicable.  

paulsurovell said:
 I don't think fear of real violent hate groups is "hysteria."

 I agree.  But I think they feed witch hunts by calling people things they are not.  This to discredit people.  And it seems they've raked a lot of $$ in by pushing the narrative further than maybe is really.

terp said 
 I agree.  But I think they feed witch hunts by calling people things they are not.  This to discredit people.  And it seems they've raked a lot of $$ in by pushing the narrative further than maybe is really.

 Are you confusing Trump/Fox narrative with the people who are feeding these "witch hunts"?? Sounds awfully similar to me.

conandrob240 said:

Klinker said:

conandrob240 said:
no collusion, no obstruction. Very interesting. I trust that Mueller gave this a fair investigation and that if he didn’t find enough evidence to support it, then it’s done. Really, so much else of what Trump has done/ said is far worse. I prefer to not impeach this President anyway. Let him go out as a loser who couldn’t win a second term. That’ll hurt his ego much more. I am disappointed though that jr and his dopey SIL seem to get out unscathed.

 Its hard to reconcile the contents of Barr's letter with what we know from info that has already been released.  
I wonder whether access to the full report might lead to different conclusions than those drawn by a Twitler appointee in a 4 page letter.

I highly doubt Barr would have spent two days with the document and got the summary incorrect. (Assuming he has decent reading comprehension). The decision on collusion was not open to interpretation. All he had to do with that one was be able to read.  Only obstruction was left open to him to draw his own conclusion.  And I’m guessing that one wasn’t anywhere near a slam dunk which is why Mueller didn’t make the call on that one. Will the report have some not so great stuff to share about Trump and his role? Sure. Probably. But I don’t think we’ll see any new conclusions, if that’s what you are suggesting. I think this case is pretty much closed in terms of any criminal charges, indictments or impeachment. 

 Hard to say.  If you think press releases from the Twitler Administration have even the most tangential relationship with the truth you've never heard Sarah Huckleberry Sanders open that pit of lies between her nose and her first chin.  

I think I will wait for the actual report.

hmmm. Should I believe William Barr and Jimmy Dore or wait for the full report?

what a toughie.

nan said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

GL2 said:
Abundantly clear: there is no god.

 Patience.  Let's see what the report actually says.
Also, let's see what Trump does and says.  "Pride goes before disaster, and a haughty spirit before a fall." Proverbs 16:18.

 Here's what the report says:

“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

i.e. No Collusion.

 Maybe we need to say it again:    No Collusion

 Just like Rudy on 9/12.

Jaytee said:
 Are you confusing Trump/Fox narrative with the people who are feeding these "witch hunts"?? Sounds awfully similar to me.

 No. 

conandrob240 said:
I highly doubt Barr would have spent two days with the document and got the summary incorrect. (Assuming he has decent reading comprehension). The decision on collusion was not open to interpretation. All he had to do with that one was be able to read.  Only obstruction was left open to him to draw his own conclusion.  And I’m guessing that one wasn’t anywhere near a slam dunk which is why Mueller didn’t make the call on that one. Will the report have some not so great stuff to share about Trump and his role? Sure. Probably. But I don’t think we’ll see any new conclusions, if that’s what you are suggesting. I think this case is pretty much closed in terms of any criminal charges, indictments or impeachment. 

 You're giving way too much credit to this administration in saying anything is not open to interpretation.  With them, EVERYTHING (including the color of the sky, whether the earth is flat or spherical, and which way is up) is open to interpretation.  

You might be right that it's over, and Trump will for sure ride this to reelection if he can.   But I want to see the text of the report before accepting that conclusion.  The report has been out for 48 hours.  We can wait another week or whatever. 

terp said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:
 Thank you comrade Paul.

 This is despicable.  

 As are you!

Dennis_Seelbach said:
 As are you!

 Thanks.  Please note that I didn't say you were despicable.  It's the idea that those that saw how flimsy this conspiracy theory that MSNBC, CNN, WaPO, NYtimes, etc were pushing was must be traitors or sympathetic with Putin. 

It's possible or even likely that the person is interested in the truth.  Perhaps it would be better to attack the administration on issues that actually exist rather than fairy tales. 

This is classic witch hunt stuff.  And its despicable. 

terp said:

 Thanks.  Please note that I didn't say you were despicable.  It's the idea that those that saw how flimsy this conspiracy theory that MSNBC, CNN, WaPO, NYtimes, etc were pushing was must be traitors or sympathetic with Putin.

I'm not quite sure where you are finding the vindication at this point.  All we have is a member of the Trump Administration saying that the report exonerates (partially) Trump.  Except for the partially part, that is what Twitler has been saying all along.

Trump is an orange *** clown and vulnerable in 2020, but this is no doubt a win for him. It fires up the MAGA base by playing right into Trump’s shtick of playing the perpetually aggrieved victim of the establishment. I’m not sure which of the Democratic presidential candidates have been particularly strident on the Mueller probe, but it’s going to be a vulnerability for whoever has been.

Bears repeating in light of several false accusations. 

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

Nothing new for @South_Mountaineer, who stalks me and says stuff like that on Twitter, where the vast majority of his tweets are directed at me. 

Mine, too. How Twitter works is that when you post something, it appears in the feeds of your followers, including South_Mountaineer and me. We don’t stalk you; your tweets find us.

paulsurovell said:

nan said:

paulsurovell said:
If anyone is interested, I'm posting my take on why Mueller decided not to indict in the Sub-Forum's Collusion thread, which now compares Trumps "meddling in Venezuela" with Putin's (alleged) "meddling" in the US.

 Thanks, Paul.  Have you considered closing down your Russiagate thread so it can just stand alone as a document of this sad obsession, and starting a fresh new one for the future?  Maybe it is better to just keep a good thing going, as other political threads on MOL have done.  Was just curious about your thinking on that.  

Click to Read More

nan said:

paulsurovell said:
If anyone is interested, I'm posting my take on why Mueller decided not to indict in the Sub-Forum's Collusion thread, which now compares Trumps "meddling in Venezuela" with Putin's (alleged) "meddling" in the US.

 Thanks, Paul.  Have you considered closing down your Russiagate thread so it can just stand alone as a document of this sad obsession, and starting a fresh new one for the future?  Maybe it is better to just keep a good thing going, as other political threads on MOL have done.  Was just curious about your thinking on that.  

 Two reasons why not:
(a) The thread is largely about media malpractice.
(b) The thread has been adapted to compare the rage among liberals against allegations of Russian "meddling" in the US with their enthusiastic endorsement of Trump's attempt to "meddle" (overthrow the government) in Venezuela.
Both (a) and (b) are far from over.

 The Barr letter you like so much says the Russians DID meddle. 

South_Mountaineer said:

Bears repeating in light of several false accusations. 

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

Nothing new for @South_Mountaineer, who stalks me and says stuff like that on Twitter, where the vast majority of his tweets are directed at me. 

Mine, too. How Twitter works is that when you post something, it appears in the feeds of your followers, including South_Mountaineer and me. We don’t stalk you; your tweets find us.

 

 It's the type of responses that sound stalkerish.  They are more like personal attacks than reflections on a comment.  So, it's like S_M is following Paul around and attaching a discrediting disclaimer to his remarks.  I remember one where he even mentioned MOL and assured the famous person he was responding to that Paul was discredited in his own community--or something like that.  Anyway, if someone did that to me I would find it unnerving and rude.  Really, not healthy.  

Red_Barchetta said:

conandrob240 said:
I highly doubt Barr would have spent two days with the document and got the summary incorrect. (Assuming he has decent reading comprehension). The decision on collusion was not open to interpretation. All he had to do with that one was be able to read.  Only obstruction was left open to him to draw his own conclusion.  And I’m guessing that one wasn’t anywhere near a slam dunk which is why Mueller didn’t make the call on that one. Will the report have some not so great stuff to share about Trump and his role? Sure. Probably. But I don’t think we’ll see any new conclusions, if that’s what you are suggesting. I think this case is pretty much closed in terms of any criminal charges, indictments or impeachment. 

Click to Read More

conandrob240 said:
I highly doubt Barr would have spent two days with the document and got the summary incorrect. (Assuming he has decent reading comprehension). The decision on collusion was not open to interpretation. All he had to do with that one was be able to read.  Only obstruction was left open to him to draw his own conclusion.  And I’m guessing that one wasn’t anywhere near a slam dunk which is why Mueller didn’t make the call on that one. Will the report have some not so great stuff to share about Trump and his role? Sure. Probably. But I don’t think we’ll see any new conclusions, if that’s what you are suggesting. I think this case is pretty much closed in terms of any criminal charges, indictments or impeachment. 

 You're giving way too much credit to this administration in saying anything is not open to interpretation.  With them, EVERYTHING (including the color of the sky, whether the earth is flat or spherical, and which way is up) is open to interpretation.  


You might be right that it's over, and Trump will for sure ride this to reelection if he can.   But I want to see the text of the report before accepting that conclusion.  The report has been out for 48 hours.  We can wait another week or whatever. 

Yeah, I don’t think so. Of course, we’ll want the report reviewed carefully but, really, I think you all need to set your expectations that this is over.

Not a good result for almost three years of work.  Democrats need to move on and work on offering a great platform filled with exciting revolutionary programs for working people and the poor. 

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/trump-is-going-to-repeat-this-until-november-2020-thanks-msnbc-6d0613859ebc?fbclid=IwAR2de8oBMz1hSMbrTGCjeOyFWqTzYLSdz59JBIqskLqpss3EMnO5ndpbxII