Frustrated Mueller says AG Barr's summary caused confusion

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Quote

 

A frustrated Mueller told AG Barr his short summary of the special counsel report caused confusion

 

WASHINGTON — Special Counsel Robert Mueller told Attorney General William Barr that the initial account of the Mueller report in Barr's four-page letter caused public confusion.

Justice Department officials say in a letter and subsequent phone call, Mueller said Barr's March 24th letter, a four-page description of what Barr called the report's principal conclusions, did not fully capture the context and substance of the more than 440 page document.

Mueller suggested that Barr release the brief summary sections of the report...

...Members of Mueller's team have previously expressed frustration that Barr cleared Trump of obstruction of justice in a letter summarizing Mueller's findings in March. A U.S. official who spoke with the members of Mueller's team told NBC News early this month that they believed the evidence that Trump sought to impede the investigation was stronger than Barr suggested.

A senior law enforcement official who also has spoken to members of Mueller's team told NBC News this month that they say the report includes detailed accounts of contacts between Trump's campaign and Russia...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/mueller-told-ag-barr-his-short-summary-special-counsel-report-n1000441

 

Of course, how would anyone know when you have so much redacted?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

Of course, how would anyone know when you have so much redacted?

Tomorrow should be entraining. Apparently attorneys are asking/writing the questions. It’s about time all of you idiots realize what the most intelligent and useful profession is.....

[RunInRed 16,430]

Bombshell.

 

[RunInRed 16,430]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

Of course, how would anyone know when you have so much redacted?

It wasn’t the redactions - it was his misrepresentation of the report via his own 4-page interpretations - not too mention, his refusal to publish the provided summaries.

[bigbird 60,567]

8 hours ago, RunInRed said:

Bombshell.

 

That last line is funny coming from a reporter. The news media's job is to serve the public. Report the news, not the political view of the news.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, bigbird said:

That last line is funny coming from a reporter. The news media's job is to serve the public. Report the news, not the political view of the news.

Excellent point. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Letter from Mueller to Barr here.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/05/01/politics/mueller-letter-to-barr/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

[homersapien 11,388]

On 5/1/2019 at 10:46 AM, Brad_ATX said:

Letter from Mueller to Barr here.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/05/01/politics/mueller-letter-to-barr/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

"The summary letter the Department released to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon on March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this department's of this Offices work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the work of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to insure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations."  - Robert Mueller

Rather is right.  Barr needs to be removed. 

[homersapien 11,388]

5 hours ago, bigbird said:

That last line is funny coming from a reporter. The news media's job is to serve the public. Report the news, not the political view of the news.

Where have you been?   Commentary has become an integral part of reporting the news.  Even Cronkite did it.  Rather has every right to comment on the news. 

That's not to say that inaccurate commentary or partisan commentary is a good thing, but to suggest it's beyond Rather's perview - especially on twitter - is what is "funny".

[bigbird 60,567]

2 thumbs down from ICHY and Homer on not politicizing the news. That's interesting to say the least.

[augolf1716 21,208]

42 minutes ago, bigbird said:

2 thumbs down from ICHY and Homer on not politicizing the news. That's interesting to say the least.

your special

[bigbird 60,567]

16 minutes ago, augolf1716 said:

your special

Yes. I. Am.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

"The summary letter the Department released to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon on March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this department's of this Offices work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the work of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to insure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations."

Rather is right.  Barr needs to be removed. 

Do you remember if you ever called for the removal of persons intricately involved in this investigation possessing demonstrable animus against the person being investigated?  

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Do you remember if you ever called for the removal of persons intricately involved in this investigation possessing demonstrable animus against the person being investigated?  

Congratulations ...😉

[augolf1716 21,208]

Just now, SaltyTiger said:

Congratulations ...😉

 

[homersapien 11,388]

16 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Do you remember if you ever called for the removal of persons intricately involved in this investigation possessing demonstrable animus against the person being investigated?  

Did this "demonstrable animus" manifest itself in the results of the report?

Was their any "demonstrable" lying or misrepresenting of the factual information that was uncovered in the investigation?

Show me the evidence.  Otherwise, I can only assume the investigation was done professionally by professionals, each of which probably has their own varied opinions about the targets of the investigation. 

Now Barr, that's a different situation. He has demonstrated a pro-Trump bias by unjustified spinning, use of inappropriate terminology and - not least - lying to Congress about getting negative feedback from Mueller.

If you want to concern yourself with bias, I'd start there.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

Did this "demonstrable animus" manifest itself in the results of the report?

Was their any "demonstrable" lying or misrepresenting of the factual information that was uncovered in the investigation?

Show me the evidence.  Otherwise, I can only assume the investigation was done professionally by professionals, each of which probably has their own varied opinions about the targets of the investigation. 

Now Barr, that's a different situation. He has demonstrated a pro-Trump bias by unjustified spinning, use of inappropriate terminology and - not least - lying to Congress about getting negative feedback from Mueller.

If you want to concern yourself with bias, I'd start there.

Let me rephrase my question: Do you remember if you ever called for the removal of persons intricately involved in this investigation possessing demonstrable animus against the person being investigated?

You jumped on my ass about “not” giving straight answers. Seems like you don’t value them much either huh??

[homersapien 11,388]

19 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Let me rephrase my question: Do you remember if you ever called for the removal of persons intricately involved in this investigation possessing demonstrable animus against the person being investigated?

You jumped on my ass about “not” giving straight answers. Seems like you don’t value them much either huh??

No, I don't "remember it", because I never did it.  I never saw any evidence of "demonstrable animus".  (I assumed this was implied in my response by my asking for evidence of such animus.*  Sorry if I assumed to much.)

Is that clear enough counselor?

 

*(Which is the critical difference between my "indirect response" and the indirect response you made that's at issue. I asked you a substantive question, which you avoided answering, whereas you asked me a 'yes or no' question that I did answer by inference.)

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

No, I don't "remember it", because I never did it.  I never saw any evidence of "demonstrable animus".  (I assumed this was implied in my response by my asking for evidence of such animus.*  Sorry if I assumed to much.)

Is that clear enough counselor?

 

*(Which is the critical difference between my "indirect response" and the indirect response you made that's at issue. I asked you a substantive question, which you avoided answering, whereas you asked me a 'yes or no' question that I did answer by inference.)

 

Cease the extra verbiage and give a direct answer. Understood?

[alexava 6,973]

2 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Cease the extra verbiage and give a direct answer. Understood?

First word, last post. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

14 minutes ago, alexava said:

First word, last post. 

Huh

Oh lol. That wasn’t a “direct” answer. It only calls for a single worded answer, you know....the kinds he wants from me at times. 

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

31 minutes ago, alexava said:

First word, last post. 

on a roll today aren't you alex 

[homersapien 11,388]

15 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Cease the extra verbiage and give a direct answer. Understood?

What did you misunderstand by "No" - the very first word in my response?

And you are a fine one to talk about extra verbiage!

[homersapien 11,388]

15 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Huh

Oh lol. That wasn’t a “direct” answer. It only calls for a single worded answer, you know....the kinds he wants from me at times. 

I never said that.  Please don't misrepresent (lie) about what I actually said. It's unbecoming of someone who is studying law.

I was looking for a direct response not a single word response. 

In fact, in the case at issue, that direct answer would have been at least too words - or more, as is your wont.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

What did you misunderstand by "No" - the very first word in my response?

And you are a fine one to talk about extra verbiage!

 

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

I never said that.  Please don't misrepresent (lie) about what I actually said. It's unbecoming of someone who is studying law.

I was looking for a direct response not a single word response. 

In fact, in the case at issue, that direct answer would have been at least too words - or more, as is your wont.

I take it you will not be answering the question. How unfortunate. Very well then.

I expect more out of you in the future. It’s unbecoming of a retired scientist. One can only hope this didn’t carry over into your career.....