Barr's Book Report On The Mueller Report Is In

nan said:

Red_Barchetta said:
Come on, you're ecstatic with this the same way Rudy loved 9/11.  

I was right on this and you were wrong.  

No I was not wrong.  All I've ever said to anyone here or elsewhere is to wait for the report and hope for clear direction.  I have told others who were on the 'impeachment now' wagon to calm down and wait for the report.  So once again you are wrong.   

nan said:

Red_Barchetta said:
Come on, you're ecstatic with this the same way Rudy loved 9/11.  

  And I'm sure not happy about Trump getting help with getting four more years.  Glad I did not contribute to that. 

As far as I see it you contribute to this EVERY GODDAMN DAY.  

terp said:
 Plus, there needs to be something to impeach him on.  Let's not forget that part.   At least those of us "with half a brain".

 I (and a lot of others I think) were hoping for a clear documentation of obstruction which would have sufficed for impeachment.  It looks like we won't have that but even if we do I'm not sure I will support an impeachment effort.  

terp said:

paulsurovell said:
 But no Americans involved in collusion/coordination/cooperation with Russia (or in the case of Russians with the Trump campaign) in the 2016 election.

 Ah.  What are details when spinning a narrative. Rachel Maddow and her fellow propagandists could care less for your details!  Adam Schiff has made a name for himself misleading the American people and seems determined to march on!   Like the SPLC, these people know there is power to be gained.  There is $$ to be made!  And thank the lord, a sucker is born every minute!

 You were right until you got to SPLC, which deals with real problems and real crimes.

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.

It's disheartening how people in this thread are jumping to conclusions on a report which has not been released. There's one piece of information to go on... No further indictments recommended by the special prosecutor.

One thing I'm noticing is certain people want to conflate a lack of evidence of Trump campaign collusion with Russia vs the FACT of Russian attempts to affect our presidential election in favor of Trump.  Even if Trump didn't collude the Russian interference was there. That's been stated by the US DNI. 

Now can we all enjoy the lovely day (unless you're a troll in Russia, I don't know what your weather is like) and wait to see what's actually in the report before calling the 2020 election for Trump? Crikey.

Red_Barchetta said:
As far as I see it you contribute to this EVERY GODDAMN DAY.  

 How so?  As I asked before, please elaborate?

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.  

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.

 I think this is premature.  Let's wait until we know what's in the report. 

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.

paulsurovell said:
 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.

 OK, good points!  Thanks.

You guys can private message each other you know.  Lets stay on topic.

jamie said:
You guys can private message each other you know.

As can we all. If one-to-one exchanges aren’t welcome in the public forum, please excuse my comment above to jimmurphy.

  one message is fine - but just don't go back and forth multiple messages in a row about info in a different discussion - the PM system is great for this.  Just highlighting that this tool is there.  Just trying to stay on topic here.

Red_Barchetta said:
 I think this is premature.  Let's wait until we know what's in the report. 

I've been trying this as well. We might as well scream at the wind. The pro-Russia folks are jumping all over this as an exoneration of Russia. 

It's all about the Rubles, baby.

mrincredible said:
I've been trying this as well. We might as well scream at the wind. The pro-Russia folks are jumping all over this as an exoneration of Russia. 

 The Pro-Russia folks?

paulsurovell said:
 You were right until you got to SPLC, which deals with real problems and real crimes.

 I'm not saying that the SPLC hasn't done some good things, but they definitely feed hysteria on "Hate crimes".  I think its pretty irresponsible to call people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali an "anti-muslim extremist" for instance.   

They definitely fan the flames of fear to get the donation $$.  

terp said:

paulsurovell said:
 You were right until you got to SPLC, which deals with real problems and real crimes.

 I'm not saying that the SPLC hasn't done some good things, but they definitely feed hysteria on "Hate crimes".  I think its pretty irresponsible to call people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali an "anti-muslim extremist" for instance.   
They definitely fan the flames of fear to get the donation $$.  

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

I'll reply here to today's tweet from South_Mountainstalker (below):

My tweets relate to Mueller's decision not to indict Trump or any associate for colluding/coordinating/conspiring with Russia in the 2016 election, not on Mueller's report. My comments are independent of the report.

And supporters of Trump's sanctions to overthrow the Venezuelan government -- like yourself -- shouldn't call those who oppose them "Trumpists."

Teaser quotes:

The report offered a mixed assessment on the question of obstruction of justice. “The Special Counsel states that ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him,’” Attorney General William P. Barr wrote. Mr. Barr said that he had concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to establish that the president committed obstruction of justice.

For each of the relevant actions by Mr. Trump the special counsel examined, “the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as ‘difficult issues’ of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’”

Cite: Mueller Report Live Updates

paulsurovell said:
I'll reply here to today's tweet from South_Mountainstalker (below):
My tweets relate to Mueller's decision not to indict Trump or any associate for colluding/coordinating/conspiring with Russia in the 2016 election, not on Mueller's report. My comments are independent of the report.
And supporters of Trump's sanctions to overthrow the Venezuelan government -- like yourself -- shouldn't call those who oppose them "Trumpists."

The picture shows you copied it 11 minutes after it was posted on the Twitter.  Who's stalking whom?

Robert Mueller Found That The Trump Campaign Did Not Conspire With Russia, According To The Attorney General

Attorney General Bill Barr submitted a letter to Congress on Sunday summarizing the special counsel's "principal conclusions."

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/robert-mueller-report-barr-trump-russia#4ldqpho

WASHINGTON – Special counsel Robert Mueller found that neither the Trump campaign, nor anyone associated with it, "conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election," according to a letter that Attorney General Bill Barr sent to Congress on Sunday.

Barr also wrote that after reviewing the evidence compiled by Mueller, he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein "concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."

Great Campaign Slogan:

"Not Indicted"

Now the second Special Counsel.  Who conspired with the Russians to produce phony intelligence to act as pretext to surreptitiously monitor a Presidential campaign.

I think we all know the answer to that.

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.

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.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
I'll reply here to today's tweet from South_Mountainstalker (below):
My tweets relate to Mueller's decision not to indict Trump or any associate for colluding/coordinating/conspiring with Russia in the 2016 election, not on Mueller's report. My comments are independent of the report.
And supporters of Trump's sanctions to overthrow the Venezuelan government -- like yourself -- shouldn't call those who oppose them "Trumpists."

The picture shows you copied it 11 minutes after it was posted on the Twitter.  Who's stalking whom?

 You're suggesting that I'm stalking my own Twitter feed?

Klinker said:
 Its hard to reconcile the contents of Barr's letter with what we know from info that has already been released.  

 He wrote it the day he was confirmed by the Senate. 

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.

"What we know" is actually "What we were misled to believe" by the mainstream media. Not a single media story about "collusion" holds up to scrutiny. It's all been fully revealed in the Sub-Forum and on the Twitter feeds of @aaronjmate and @ggreenwald.

My favorite "collusion" story that was hyped on MSNBC:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-held-secret-talks-with-assange-in-ecuadorian-embassy

Can we see the report now?  What does everyone think Trump wasn't exonerated for?