Mueller has delivered his report

[Bob78164]

It turns out that Attorney General Barr has a history with the phrase "summariz[ing] the principal conclusions" of a report. It's not a good one. The last time he used that phrase, when the full report actually came to light, it turns out that he had given materially false testimony in his summary.

But none of his lies came to light until long after he'd left office. Looks like he's trying the same playbook.

The American people, or at least their elected Representatives, need to see the full unredacted report. --Bob

[BackInTex]

It turns out that Attorney General Barr has a history with the phrase "summariz[ing] the principal conclusions" of a report. It's not a good one. The last time he used that phrase, when the full report actually came to light, it turns out that he had given materially false testimony in his summary.

But none of his lies came to light until long after he'd left office. Looks like he's trying the same playbook.

The American people, or at least their elected Representatives, need to see the full unredacted report. --Bob

Why?

[Bob78164]

It turns out that Attorney General Barr has a history with the phrase "summariz[ing] the principal conclusions" of a report. It's not a good one. The last time he used that phrase, when the full report actually came to light, it turns out that he had given materially false testimony in his summary.

But none of his lies came to light until long after he'd left office. Looks like he's trying the same playbook.

The American people, or at least their elected Representatives, need to see the full unredacted report. --Bob

Why?

Because we can't trust Barr's word, as the story linked above demonstrates. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

It turns out that Attorney General Barr has a history with the phrase "summariz[ing] the principal conclusions" of a report. It's not a good one. The last time he used that phrase, when the full report actually came to light, it turns out that he had given materially false testimony in his summary.

But none of his lies came to light until long after he'd left office. Looks like he's trying the same playbook.

The American people, or at least their elected Representatives, need to see the full unredacted report. --Bob

Why?

Because we can't trust Barr's word, as the story linked above demonstrates. --Bob

All of a sudden, Barr is now a liar too. Amazing. And all of you that knighted Mueller as the epitome of honesty and nobility now do not accept his findings and want to see everything in your search for dirt and sleaze to peddle against whomever you can? Only you can see the truth, and everyone else who disagrees with you based on fact is lying?

I say it again, you are insane.

[silverscreenselect]

And all of you that knighted Mueller as the epitome of honesty and nobility now do not accept his findings and want to see everything in your search for dirt and sleaze to peddle against whomever you can?

That's the problem. We haven't seen Barr's findings so we don't know what we are being asked to accept. We've actually "seen" less than 100 totals words of his findings out of a 400-page report.

[Bob78164]

And all of you that knighted Mueller as the epitome of honesty and nobility now do not accept his findings and want to see everything in your search for dirt and sleaze to peddle against whomever you can?

That's the problem. We haven't seen Barr's findings so we don't know what we are being asked to accept. We've actually "seen" less than 100 totals words of his findings out of a 400-page report.

You mean Mueller's findings. --Bob

[tlynn78]

And all of you that knighted Mueller as the epitome of honesty and nobility now do not accept his findings and want to see everything in your search for dirt and sleaze to peddle against whomever you can?

That's the problem. We haven't seen Barr's findings so we don't know what we are being asked to accept. We've actually "seen" less than 100 totals words of his findings out of a 400-page report.

You mean Mueller's findings. --Bob

It's hard to keep the crazy straight.

[Bob78164]

Why?

Because we can't trust Barr's word, as the story linked above demonstrates. --Bob

All of a sudden, Barr is now a liar too. Amazing. And all of you that knighted Mueller as the epitome of honesty and nobility now do not accept his findings and want to see everything in your search for dirt and sleaze to peddle against whomever you can? Only you can see the truth, and everyone else who disagrees with you based on fact is lying?

I say it again, you are insane.

Both Barr's testimony and the previous report he claimed to be summarizing are matters of public record.

He gave false testimony to Congress. No way around it.

You don't care, but most of the American people probably will. He's saying what you want him to say so you want us to trust that he's telling the truth this time, even though he lied before. Not going to happen. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Because we can't trust Barr's word, as the story linked above demonstrates. --Bob

All of a sudden, Barr is now a liar too. Amazing. And all of you that knighted Mueller as the epitome of honesty and nobility now do not accept his findings and want to see everything in your search for dirt and sleaze to peddle against whomever you can? Only you can see the truth, and everyone else who disagrees with you based on fact is lying?

I say it again, you are insane.

Both Barr's testimony and the previous report he claimed to be summarizing are matters of public record.

He gave false testimony to Congress. No way around it.

You don't care, but most of the American people probably will. He's saying what you want him to say so you want us to trust that he's telling the truth this time, even though he lied before. Not going to happen. --Bob

If he lied, Mueller would have said something. He did when one of your sources of truth made up fake news about Cohen, didn't he? Of course Barr put his reputation and good name on the line to lie about the results presented to him. And he's hiding it because he's adhering to the laws pertaining to the report. But you don't care about laws, do you, mr. above average ethical lawyer? You do what your party tells you to do. You, bob-tel, are NOT the American people. You are a loud mouth extremist minority that relies on propaganda as news. You are pitiable and insane, and most of the American people are seeing that, even if you can't.

[silverscreenselect]

You are pitiable and insane, and most of the American people are seeing that, even if you can't.

Well, I doubt that most of the American people have formed an opinion as to whether Bob is pitiable and insane, but they do have opinions about the Mueller report, which, not surprisingly, contradict what you and Trump have to say.

According to this poll, 75% of the public, including 54% of Republicans, want the entire report released. Only 18% felt the Barr summary was enough.

56% still feel there are unresolved questions about Trump's wrongdoing.

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/29/70771399 ... t-released

[tlynn78]

You are pitiable and insane, and most of the American people are seeing that, even if you can't.

Well, I doubt that most of the American people have formed an opinion as to whether Bob is pitiable and insane, but they do have opinions about the Mueller report, which, not surprisingly, contradict what you and Trump have to say.

According to this poll, 75% of the public, including 54% of Republicans, want the entire report released. Only 18% felt the Barr summary was enough.

56% still feel there are unresolved questions about Trump's wrongdoing.

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/29/70771399 ... t-released

The same pollsters who predicted a Hillz landslide victory?

[Bob78164]

All of a sudden, Barr is now a liar too. Amazing. And all of you that knighted Mueller as the epitome of honesty and nobility now do not accept his findings and want to see everything in your search for dirt and sleaze to peddle against whomever you can? Only you can see the truth, and everyone else who disagrees with you based on fact is lying?

I say it again, you are insane.

Both Barr's testimony and the previous report he claimed to be summarizing are matters of public record.

He gave false testimony to Congress. No way around it.

You don't care, but most of the American people probably will. He's saying what you want him to say so you want us to trust that he's telling the truth this time, even though he lied before. Not going to happen. --Bob

If he lied, Mueller would have said something. He did when one of your sources of truth made up fake news about Cohen, didn't he? Of course Barr put his reputation and good name on the line to lie about the results presented to him. And he's hiding it because he's adhering to the laws pertaining to the report. But you don't care about laws, do you, mr. above average ethical lawyer? You do what your party tells you to do. You, bob-tel, are NOT the American people. You are a loud mouth extremist minority that relies on propaganda as news. You are pitiable and insane, and most of the American people are seeing that, even if you can't.

You have no idea what's in the report because you haven't read it. All I know is that Donny seems to have his Attorney General working pretty hard to hide a report that supposedly exonerates him.

If the report really was as good for Donny as you'd have us believe, every letter of it would have been on Fox News weeks ago. Hell, Donny probably would have tweeted it, confidentiality be damned. His conduct tells me that there's something to hide.

Did you see the movie Primary Colors? There's a scene toward the end when the candidate exhales in relief after the paternity test comes back and the kid isn't his. Immediately thereafter, his campaign manager quits. Why? Because the candidate didn't know what the paternity test would say until it came back.

That's how Donny's been behaving with respect to the Mueller report. He had no idea whether it would accuse him of wrongdoing. That's because he knows that he engaged in wrongdoing. He just didn't know whether Mueller had the goods on him. And we'll know what Mueller did and didn't find when we see the actual report. And not before. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Both Barr's testimony and the previous report he claimed to be summarizing are matters of public record.

He gave false testimony to Congress. No way around it.

You don't care, but most of the American people probably will. He's saying what you want him to say so you want us to trust that he's telling the truth this time, even though he lied before. Not going to happen. --Bob

If he lied, Mueller would have said something. He did when one of your sources of truth made up fake news about Cohen, didn't he? Of course Barr put his reputation and good name on the line to lie about the results presented to him. And he's hiding it because he's adhering to the laws pertaining to the report. But you don't care about laws, do you, mr. above average ethical lawyer? You do what your party tells you to do. You, bob-tel, are NOT the American people. You are a loud mouth extremist minority that relies on propaganda as news. You are pitiable and insane, and most of the American people are seeing that, even if you can't.

You have no idea what's in the report because you haven't read it. All I know is that Donny seems to have his Attorney General working pretty hard to hide a report that supposedly exonerates him.

If the report really was as good for Donny as you'd have us believe, every letter of it would have been on Fox News weeks ago. Hell, Donny probably would have tweeted it, confidentiality be damned. His conduct tells me that there's something to hide.

Did you see the movie Primary Colors? There's a scene toward the end when the candidate exhales in relief after the paternity test comes back and the kid isn't his. Immediately thereafter, his campaign manager quits. Why? Because the candidate didn't know what the paternity test would say until it came back.

That's how Donny's been behaving with respect to the Mueller report. He had no idea whether it would accuse him of wrongdoing. That's because he knows that he engaged in wrongdoing. He just didn't know whether Mueller had the goods on him. And we'll know what Mueller did and didn't find when we see the actual report. And not before. --Bob

????
I really fear for you. What are you going to do when you find out there's nothing really there? I know the left will concoct something, but sooner or later, deep down even you will realize you have been chasing your hate around led by a leash held by people who want their power back.

[Bob78164]

Here's the

Spoiler

redacted

report.

From page 10 of the PDF: "A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts."

But that's exactly how Barr tried to spin it. Just like he did back in 1989, when he presented what he claimed was a summary, he lied.

Here (also from page 10 of the PDF) is the standard they were using to determine whether criminal conspiracy occurred: "We understood coordination to require an agreement -- tacit or express -- between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

Translation: There was evidence of an express or tacit agreement between Donny's campaign and the Russian government, just not enough to "establish" that it occurred for purposes of a criminal conspiracy prosecution. And it was established that Donny's campaign took full advantage of the Russian interference, but that doesn't count as "coordination."

No wonder Donny is leaving town. --Bob

[BackInTex]

Here's the

Spoiler

redacted

report.

From page 10 of the PDF: "A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts."

But that's exactly how Barr tried to spin it. Just like he did back in 1989, when he presented what he claimed was a summary, he lied.

Here (also from page 10 of the PDF) is the standard they were using to determine whether criminal conspiracy occurred: "We understood coordination to require an agreement -- tacit or express -- between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

Translation: There was evidence of an express or tacit agreement between Donny's campaign and the Russian government, just not enough to "establish" that it occurred for purposes of a criminal conspiracy prosecution. And it was established that Donny's campaign took full advantage of the Russian interference, but that doesn't count as "coordination."

No wonder Donny is leaving town. --Bob

Thanks Bobbie. You've made me chuckle. I needed it.

[tlynn78]

Here's the

Spoiler

redacted

report.

From page 10 of the PDF: "A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts."

But that's exactly how Barr tried to spin it. Just like he did back in 1989, when he presented what he claimed was a summary, he lied.

Here (also from page 10 of the PDF) is the standard they were using to determine whether criminal conspiracy occurred: "We understood coordination to require an agreement -- tacit or express -- between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

Translation: There was evidence of an express or tacit agreement between Donny's campaign and the Russian government, just not enough to "establish" that it occurred for purposes of a criminal conspiracy prosecution. And it was established that Donny's campaign took full advantage of the Russian interference, but that doesn't count as "coordination."

No wonder Donny is leaving town. --Bob

THIS, from a 'lawyer' ...

Thanks Bobbie. You've made me chuckle. I needed it.

Ditto. If you need more chuckles, visit EFB - it's a hoot! Almost as good as 11/2016 all over again.

[flockofseagulls104]

Here's the

Spoiler

redacted

report.

From page 10 of the PDF: "A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts."

But that's exactly how Barr tried to spin it. Just like he did back in 1989, when he presented what he claimed was a summary, he lied.

Here (also from page 10 of the PDF) is the standard they were using to determine whether criminal conspiracy occurred: "We understood coordination to require an agreement -- tacit or express -- between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

Translation: There was evidence of an express or tacit agreement between Donny's campaign and the Russian government, just not enough to "establish" that it occurred for purposes of a criminal conspiracy prosecution. And it was established that Donny's campaign took full advantage of the Russian interference, but that doesn't count as "coordination."

No wonder Donny is leaving town. --Bob

Yup, that convinces me. How stupid I've been. That one sentence proves that Putin and trump are really the same person. We all need to panic and run around in circles and vote for democrats. Thanks for your wisdom, bob-tel. I don't know why everyone says you're so dumb.

[Spock]

Here's the

Spoiler

redacted

report.

From page 10 of the PDF: "A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts."

But that's exactly how Barr tried to spin it. Just like he did back in 1989, when he presented what he claimed was a summary, he lied.

Here (also from page 10 of the PDF) is the standard they were using to determine whether criminal conspiracy occurred: "We understood coordination to require an agreement -- tacit or express -- between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

Translation: There was evidence of an express or tacit agreement between Donny's campaign and the Russian government, just not enough to "establish" that it occurred for purposes of a criminal conspiracy prosecution. And it was established that Donny's campaign took full advantage of the Russian interference, but that doesn't count as "coordination."

No wonder Donny is leaving town. --Bob

THIS, from a 'lawyer' ...

Thanks Bobbie. You've made me chuckle. I needed it.

Ditto. If you need more chuckles, visit EFB - it's a hoot! Almost as good as 11/2016 all over again.

My vision of Bob#'s as he wrote the above.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqAX8n38EdI

[Spock]

THIS, from a 'lawyer' ...

Thanks Bobbie. You've made me chuckle. I needed it.

Ditto. If you need more chuckles, visit EFB - it's a hoot! Almost as good as 11/2016 all over again.

My vision of Bob#'s as he wrote the above.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqAX8n38EdI

It really is too bad for your side that you don't have Trump on tape telling Putin that he will have more flexibility after the election.

[flockofseagulls104]

Ditto. If you need more chuckles, visit EFB - it's a hoot! Almost as good as 11/2016 all over again.

My vision of Bob#'s as he wrote the above.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqAX8n38EdI

It really is too bad for your side that you don't have Trump on tape telling Putin that he will have more flexibility after the election.

They're not on any 'side'. They are a mob.

[Spock]

Bob#'s>>>"No wonder Donny is leaving town. --Bob<<<

On reflection, this made me laugh.

Yeah, he built his Easter plans because he is scared of Bob.

[Spock]

Bob#'s>>>"No wonder Donny is leaving town. --Bob<<<

On reflection, this made me laugh.

Yeah, he built his Easter plans because he is scared of Bob.

I shouldn't be gobsmacked by SSS and the Bob's anymore, but for some reason, I am at this.

I just keep shaking my head in wonder at Bob tying President Trump's Easter plans to his tinfoil hat conspiracy theories.

[Bob78164]

“President Trump reacted negatively to the Special Counsel’s appointment. He told advisors that it was the end of his presidency . . . .”

That’s compelling evidence of guilty knowledge. If he didn’t do anything wrong, an investigation wouldn’t end his presidency.

“He . . . sought to have Attorney General Jefferson (Jeff) Sessions unrecuse from the Russia investigation and to have the Special Counsel removed, and engaged in efforts to curtail the Special Counsel’s investigation and prevent the disclosure of evidence to it, including through public and private contacts with potential witnesses.”

That’s a textbook example of obstruction of justice.

Senator King got it right. “Mueller passed the obstruction question to the Congress and Barr intercepted the pass.“

The witnesses Mueller relied upon to reach this conclusion need to testify in public before the House Judiciary Committee so the American people and their elected representatives can assess the extent to which Donny abused the powers of his office to obstruct justice. And if Donny claims he didn’t have corrupt intent, his state of mind is at issue and he also needs to testify under oath before the Committee. —Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

“President Trump reacted negatively to the Special Counsel’s appointment. He told advisors that it was the end of his presidency . . . .”

That’s compelling evidence of guilty knowledge. If he didn’t do anything wrong, an investigation wouldn’t end his presidency.

In what universe? First of all, it's hearsay, and second of all, he knew that this investigation would hang over him like it hung over Clinton and Nixon before him. That is not evidence of anything,

“He . . . sought to have Attorney General Jefferson (Jeff) Sessions unrecuse from the Russia investigation and to have the Special Counsel removed, and engaged in efforts to curtail the Special Counsel’s investigation and prevent the disclosure of evidence to it, including through public and private contacts with potential witnesses.”

Also hearsay, but HE DIDN'T DO ANY SUCH THING. The SC was NOT removed and he complied with EVERY request, not once invoking executive privilege.

That’s a textbook example of obstruction of justice.

Senator King got it right. “Mueller passed the obstruction question to the Congress and Barr intercepted the pass.“
Senator King is a politician. He will say anything that he thinks might give him advantage.



The witnesses Mueller relied upon to reach this conclusion need to testify in public before the House Judiciary Committee so the American people and their elected representatives can assess the extent to which Donny abused the powers of his office to obstruct justice. And if Donny claims he didn’t have corrupt intent, his state of mind is at issue and he also needs to testify under oath before the Committee. —Bob

The people who kicked off and fueled this investigation need to be questioned and investigated. There are A LOT of questions on that side, bob-tel, which you apparently have no interest in.

[Bob78164]

Then there’s this from page 18 of the PDF (page 10 of Volume 1):

“The Office investigated several other events that have been publicly reported to involve potential Russia-related contacts. For example, the investigation established that interactions between Russian Ambassador Kislyak and Trump Campaign officials both at the candidates’s April 2016 foreign policy speech in Washington, D.C., and during the week of the Republican National Convention were brief, public, and non-substantive.”

Translation: “the investigation established” means “we have enough evidence to conclude that no crime was committed.”

“And the investigation did not establish that one Campaign officials’s efforts to dilute a portion of the Republican Party platform on providing assistance to Ukraine were undertaken at the behest of candidate Trump or Russia. The investigation also did not establish that a meeting between Kislyak and Sessions in September 2016 at Sessions’s Senate office included any more than a passing mention of the presidential campaign.”

Translation: “the investigation did not establish” means “a crime may have been committed but we don’t think we can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Why not? “Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated — including some associated with the Trump Campaign — deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts.”

Russia, if you’re listening I sure hope you find those deleted e-mails. —Bob