Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

You are bringing up an important point. Democrats may be screaming bloody murder now to have the entire Mueller report unredacted illegally, but just wait until Barr starts unredacting all the damning information about the FBI and Obama Administration. The tune is going to suddenly shift to "How dare they give us that information, IT IS ILLEGAL!" Democrats have never been accused of being consistent. I can't wait!

idaholover Loc: Nampa ID

Then why don't they? I guess a certain set of standards are necessary as well.

What's True:
Saul Alinsky wrote an epigraph describing the rebellious angel Lucifer as "the first radical known to man" in his book "Rules for Radicals."


I notice he didn't pick a Mother Teresa.

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

He also ignored that Alinsky counted on the lie as being its strength.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

A real Mensa meeting!

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

And you had to crash the door to get in.

Elaine2025 Loc: Seattle, Wa

Elaine2025 Loc: Seattle, Wa

Way to misquote and misrepresent, but that is what the left does.

Elaine2025 Loc: Seattle, Wa

The dems have a lot more misery coming their way with the multiple investigations by Barr.

Texcaster Loc: Queensland

Mother Teresa was no saint.

Alinsky's Rules For Radicals is no fiery manifesto, merely a how to book that you've glomed on to as something else real scary to the easily frightened.

Shutterbug1697 Loc: Northeast

After Mueller's press conference yesterday, it's Barr who needs to be worried.

Mueller set the record straight that Barr misrepresented the results of the Mueller Investigation.

Yet the GOP chooses to ignore what's in the report, and continues to repeat the no collusion, no obstruction mantra.

It's obvious that the vast majority of GOP members of Congress have NOT read any of the Mueller Report, they're just pushing their party leader's LIES.

Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

Okay smart guy. Please tell us where Barr has misrepresented the Mueller report, and BE SPECIFIC. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke again.

McKinneyMike Loc: Texas

Here is a quick link. There are many videos of the April 18th lies by Barr about what Mueller supposedly told Barr vs what Mueller said publicly yesterday. Barr did not release Mueller's summations, as he wanted Barr to do, instead, changing Mueller's summaries to provide cover for Trump and spin the results as if Trump was innocent of all allegations.

"In the month before Robert Mueller’s report was released, Attorney General Barr painted a picture of a special counsel who couldn’t decide whether to charge the president with obstruction of justice, so he simply thew up his hands and left the decision up to the attorney general. During testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee after the report had been released, Barr acknowledged that Mueller explained his position, but suggested that he was “not really sure of” Mueller’s reasoning on the issue.

There was, however, one time when Barr was asked a specific question about something that might have influenced Mueller’s position. It happened during the press conference just prior to the release of the report.

Without Mueller present, Barr took a question from a reporter who asked whether Mueller’s non-decision on obstruction “had anything to do with the department’s long-standing guidance from the Office of Legal Counsel on not indicting a sitting president.”

Barr responded that he had a private conversation with Mueller, who told him that he “was not saying that but for the OLC opinion, he would have found a crime.”

During his remarks at the Justice Department this morning, Mueller demonstrated that Barr has been lying in an attempt to mislead all along.

The order appointing me special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation, and we kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of the progress of our work. And as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.

The introduction to the Volume II of our report explains that decision. It explains that under longstanding department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited. A special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.

Shorter Mueller: if Trump were not president, he would have been charged with the crime of obstructing justice.

On Barr’s contention that the special counsel left the decision in his hands, Mueller went on to say that “the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.” That other process described in the Constitution is impeachment, not an override by the attorney general."

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/05/29/according-to-mueller-the-attorney-general-lied/

Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

Your quote from William Barr leaves out the important points. Here it is in full:

Barr: "I’d leave it to his description in the report, (emphasis mine) the special counsel’s own articulation of why he did not want to make a determination as to whether or not there was an obstruction offense. But I will say that when we met with him, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and I met with him, along with Ed O’Callaghan, who is the principal associate deputy, on March 5th, we specifically asked him about the OLC opinion and whether or not he was taking a position that he would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion. And he made it very clear several times that that was not his position. He was not saying that but for the OLC opinion, he would have found a crime. He made it clear that he had not made the determination that there was a crime."

The important quote from Barr is

"I’d leave it to his description in the report, the special counsel’s own articulation of why he did not want to make a determination as to whether or not there was an obstruction offense."

Everybody conveniently leaves out that part. He then goes on to relate what Mueller told him personally where you extracted the partial quote:

“was not saying that but for the OLC opinion, he would have found a crime.”

You couldn't even include the entire sentence in the quote for Christsakes. He was saying that Mueller told him and two other people, Rosenstein and OCallaghan, that the policy of not charging a sitting President did not prevent him from finding a crime of obstruction.

If you really want to split these hairs, then perhaps it is Mueller that should be accused of lying to Barr, Rosenstein, and O'callaghan.

Elaine2025 Loc: Seattle, Wa

So, you believe Mueller, but you don't believe Barr. What facts do you have that lead you to that conclusion? What if Barr has a recording or a letter where Mueller says differently?

Bottom line, you either PROVE a crime or you cannot say a crime has been committed. NO PROOF, no crime. All are presumed innocent. NO PROOF, you are innocent. Period.

Elaine2025 Loc: Seattle, Wa

You imagine what you want to imagine the facts to be. Your conclusions are faulty.

Had Trump been guilty of obstruction or collusion, he could have been charged upon leaving office. It was Muellers job to PROVE collusion or obustruction and say it. He didn't say it because there is no proof. Period.