We finally hear from the Mueller team

WASHINGTON — Some of Robert S. Mueller III’s investigators have told associates that Attorney General William P. Barr failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry and that they were more troubling for President Trump than Mr. Barr indicated, according to government officials and others familiar with their simmering frustrations.

At stake in the dispute — the first evidence of tension between Mr. Barr and the special counsel’s office — is who shapes the public’s initial understanding of one of the most consequential government investigations in American history. Some members of Mr. Mueller’s team are concerned that, because Mr. Barr created the first narrative of the special counsel’s findings, Americans’ views will have hardened before the investigation’s conclusions become public.

Mr. Barr has said he will move quickly to release the nearly 400-page report but needs time to scrub out confidential information. The special counsel’s investigators had already written multiple summaries of the report, and some team members believe that Mr. Barr should have included more of their material in the four-page letter he wrote on March 24 laying out their main conclusions, according to government officials familiar with the investigation. Mr. Barr only briefly cited the special counsel’s work in his letter.

However, the special counsel’s office never asked Mr. Barr to release the summaries soon after he received the report, a person familiar with the investigation said. And the Justice Department quickly determined that the summaries contain sensitive information, like classified material, secret grand-jury testimony and information related to current federal investigations that must remain confidential, according to two government officials.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/03/us/politics/mueller-report-barr.html

Of course, some of us are actively discouraging the false conclusions reached by Barr because he is highly prejudicial.

Barr believes the President is omnipotent. Barr is a strong believer in the unitary executive. According to the unitary executive theory, since the Constitution assigns the president all of “the executive power”, he can set aside laws that attempt to limit his power over national security. This is an enormous power: critics charge that it effectively places the president above the law.

Barr authored a memo in June 2018. saying he thought the Mueller investigation was "fatally misconceived."

Barr said his redacted report to Congress would be governed by DOJ rule 6(e) which prohibits disclosure of evidence if the person is not going to be indicted. The DOJ does not allow the indictment of a sitting President. Barr has still not made the distinction between a person and the President.

 

The rule of law still lives! Thanks to the investigators.

 

Lol, same sources that have been fooling liberal idiots with the collusion hoax for the last 3 years? Bwahahaha

I can actually imagine the conversation:

-Associates to Mueller's investigators: "WTF dude, you spent 3 years and $50 mln to completely exonerate Trump"

-Mueller's investigators: "Hmm, well, ugh, not really.... that we did not charge him or his team, did not get sealed indictments and did not recommend any indictments is not as good as it sounds.... we caught Jared smoking cigars in hotel's non-smoking rooms, no less"

 

Borat goes off on a rant that is grounded not in the facts.

 

Barr clearly seized the opportunity to establish a false narrative and then delay the release of Mueller's actual findings long enough to allow his narrative to take hold.

 

What false narrative would that be again?

 

The failing NY Times is printing fake news again.....

 

Dirty Donalds hand picked A.G. based on the piece he wrote last Summer basically saying he would let Dirty Don off the hook.Releases 4 pages of drivel.Let the sunlight shine on the FULL MUELLER REPORT that taxpayers paid for.

 

The GOP had no problem releasing every salacious and pornographic word of the Starr expose of Bill Clinton.Dirty Donald should be afforded the exact same treatment including all the grand jury testimony.

 

Exactly.

 

More rumors of a fatal blow yet to come in the secret Mueller report. Dust off your Impeachment Party clothes girls!

 

Given that Mueller's probe was heavily staffed with Democratic party donors, I'm surprised the sour grapes took this long to materialize.

 

Well Trump is a WHITE man, with an R by his name, so covering up crimes is good, (cuz of their agenda, those guys are allowed).

Dumb *******.

 

As anticipated, this situation is heating up quickly. It will get worse.

 

Before 2020, how much ya wanna bet that Barr ends up indicted? If the rule of law holds, it's pretty much a foregone conclusion. He got away covering for Bush, he won't twice.

 

You do have a problem keeping your story straight.

 

This isn't a grasp for a fatal blow - it is a request for the full report to be disclosed. Why is it being blocked? I understand the Grand Jury content will not be appropriate for public view, but it can be redacted. As for Congress, what is the problem with sharing the full report with them?

 

Leaks to the media....straight from the democrat playbook. Are they true? I will play the odds here and say it is a big nothing burger.

 

Is this it? The big "it" the malcontents have been screeching about for nearly 2-1/2 years?
I suggest not.
While the alt-lefties caterwauling drones on, real **** is getting done.
"Trump is appointing judges at a record pace. Now McConnell wants to move even faster"

 

Harry Reid did start this and McConnell has continued it. What will happen is the Dems, when they have a veto proof majority in the Senate and House, will impeach the Judges they don't like and will increase the SCOTUS to 15 judges, which will support their moves and block such future attempts by the GOP. From the link,

"In 2013, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, changed the threshold for advancing nominations of federal judicial nominees — except the Supreme Court — and executive-office appointments from 60 senators to 50.

It was derided at the time by Republicans as a “nuclear option.” Four years later, McConnell used his own “nuclear option” to lower the threshold in the same way for Supreme Court nominations, clearing the path for Trump’s two appointments to the high court.

But other Senate precedents have gone by the wayside as well. In 2017, McConnell refused to consider the confirmation of Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland. Republicans have also done away with the custom of allowing senators to effectively block judicial appointments in their home states, a process known as a “blue slip.”

Republicans say Democrats are taking advantage of the rule governing 30 hours of debate. They cite 128 instances during the first two years of the Trump administration in which Democrats have insisted on using the full amount of time. During the six presidencies before Trump, it was demanded only 24 times on nominations.

And they cited instances in which Democrats — after insisting on all 30 hours of debate time — then only debated for a few hours, or even minutes. The rest of the time, the Senate floor was largely empty, with no other work able to be done.

“This is not about actual debate,” said Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), citing one nomination that was debated for 4 minutes and 22 seconds. “This is about preventing President Trump from getting nominees by blocking up the floor.” He said that since Republicans would also demand 30 hours of debate the next time they are in the minority, it made sense to simply limit the time to prevent the Senate from becoming bogged down over low-level appointments.

The rule change Republicans are expected to pursue would be permanent unless a future Senate majority decided to undo the change. A somewhat similar rule change limiting debate time was adopted during Obama’s second term, but only on a temporary basis."

 

Why are you so obsessed with the concept of the unitary executive? It is a perfectly valid position and is the preferable one to me as otherwise the executive branch would never be equal to the other branches. It is not unreasonable.

 

The OP ain't exactly rife with facts OK ... "hear from the Mueller team"? The NYT author is not currently, nor was he formerly part of the Mueller team. OP-EDs rarely rely on, or reveal any, facts.
This NYT article is no exception.

 

Like the OP? Evidently the left has a memory of a mouse concerning all the leaks that proved to be false.

 

Because as cnn stated on air the other night, “we know the full report hasn’t been given to congress because of it had, you know everyone would have it.” To resounding laughs

 

Glenn Greenwald, one of the few genuine journalists left, has much to say about this recently on Democracy Now, a left wing news outlet, but I doubt the left wing conspiracy theorists will ever listen to a thing Glenn says, given he is an actual journalist and not a part of the echo chamber bubble on the left, that includes entities like CNN and MSNBC, and yes, even the NYT.

But just in case here you go...



People like me, ex democrats, FDR democrats, use Greenwald as a source for journalism, since he has integrity, honesty, and practices journalistic standards whereas so few in MSM even know what those things are these days. And he is sickened by the total lack of genuine journalism today in the legacy media.

Real journalists who speak truth to power, instead of being tribalistic and pawns of the CIA, generally have to flee america, and only the propagandists remain here, as seen in the NYT, and the legacy media seen on television.