We finally hear from the Mueller team

Giuliani, who told Fox News’ Howard Kurtz on “MediaBuzz” that he would like to see the Mueller report released in its entirety, slammed The New York Times’ sources for wanting the Mueller Report released in its entirety.

“That leak really indicates all you need to know about Mueller’s prosecutors,” Giuliani said on the Times’ unnamed sources. “Leaking like that…that’s been the biggest canard in this investigation.”

Giuliani is funny sometimes.

 

Rudy Giuliani, personal attorney to President Trump, said on Sunday that House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., should get all of the information in Robert Mueller's report on collusion between the Trump's 2016 campaign and Russia.

"I would like him to get all the information," Giuliani said. "Everything," he added, including grand jury material.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...dler-should-get-everything-in-muellers-report

Rudy may learn to regret that statement, but, at this point, that is what he had to say. The full, un-redacted Mueller Report will be given to Nadler along with grand jury testimony and classified info, in other words, all supporting evidence. Rudy cannot look concerned about that realization.

There is no way this can be kept from Congress, and Barr knows it. If Barr fights it, Trump can kiss his ass goodbye.

Of course, that is likely to happen anyway. The GOP is unlikely to nominate a loser in 2020.

 

Congress will leak whatever they get from Mueller.

It will take MSNBC five minutes to get a copy.

 

Facts? That is funny.

 

I didn't see any names of members of the Mueller team publicly complaining.

All this NYT's nebulous garbage does is stretch out a nothing burger -- at least a little bit for a short while.

 

Now we are getting somewhere.

The leaders of the House Judiciary Committee agreed on Monday to call special counsel Robert Mueller to appear for a hearing. The question now is whether Mueller would agree.

Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., the panel's ranking member asked the chairman, Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., to invite Mueller to testify later this month. Collins, wow, that is highly significant. Are Republicans finally wising up?

Although the committee expects to hear from Attorney General William Barr, Collins wrote, it must go to the source to learn all it needs to know about the special counsel inquiry.Collins wrote:

Attorney General Barr was never a part of this investigation, and instead simply reviewed the special counsel's final report and has provided Congress, so far, with the special counsel's principal conclusions. While he can testify surrounding his decision to provide the committee with principal conclusions, it is special counsel Mueller who is best positioned to testify regarding the underlying facts and material in which you are so interested.

Double wow!

Collins asked Nadler to invite Mueller to appear during the week of April 22.

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/08/7111...all-for-mueller-hearing-unclear-if-hed-appear

 

So, you are banking on this being fake news. The NYT is not into writing fantasies. I have not heard Barr or the White House challenge what the NYT wrote.

That is your first clue that what the Times wrote was accurate. It makes sense, too, knowing what we know. Barr did not provide one piece of evidence against Trump, and we know there is a bunch.

Moreover, if Bar gets carried away with black redact tape and removes the evidence against Trump, he and Trump will be in a world of hurt. Barr would be guilty of obstruction of justice. Trump would be a co-defendant because he hired Barr, or so the impeachment charge will say. Barr's prejudices are well known.

 

I think the next named storm (Hurricane) will be called TDS.

 

Or is it, as it as always seems to be, conservatives, being right wingers, by definition, favor leaders over the people. Can't imagine why conservatives always look like authoritarians.

 

Why should Barr waste time challenging the distractions and distortions of the NYT. All Barr has to do is follow the well defined law.

The reason for no Mueller indictments of Trump is no Mueller evidence against Trump. If Mueller had evidence he would have indicted Trump, or at least kept digging.

No indictments. It is over.

 

For the first time since the end of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, Attorney General William Barr faced questions on Capitol Hill regarding his handling of Mueller's findings, when he plans to release the report and how he will handle the issue of redacted information.

From a justice point of view, it was not pretty.

The Mueller Report was tasked with finding out if the Trump campaign and/or Trump himself were collaborating with the Russian government concerning their interference in the 2016 Presidential election on Trump's behalf. A fair amount of evidence is known to the public that collaboration did take place.

We know five close associates to Trump are now convicted felons, and each had a connection to the Russian government. These close associates included a campaign manager, deputy campaign manager, a national security advisor, and Trump's personal lawyer. We know Trump's son, son-in-law, and campaign manager met with Russian operatives at Trump's home, Trump Tower. We know from Trump's lawyer that during the entire 2016 Presidential campaign Trump was negotiating with the Russian government for a Trump Tower in Moscow. That is simply a tiny tip of the iceberg as far as the evidence is concerned.

We can gather from that evidence that Trump definitely had a relationship with the Russian government, and his foreign policy indicates that as well.

Thus it is unfortunate, but not a shock, to learn that Barr insists on protecting Trump.

Barr repeatedly refused to answer a direct question as to whether the White House has seen -- or will see -- the full Mueller report prior to its release.

"I don't intend at this stage to send the full unredacted report to the committee," Barr stated. In other words, he wishes to hide portions of the Mueller Report from Congress. Selected members of Congress see the most sensitive intelligence generated by our intell agencies, but, according to Barr, they will not see all of the Mueller Report, only what Barr decides they will see. This in accordance with the four rules Barr himself created.

Barr refused to discuss Trump's alleged obstruction with the committee.

Put a different way, Trump's hit man is doing exactly what he was hired to do.

 

To summarize Sandy's conclusions

He believes in guilt by association. Nothing else is necessary.

 

Chris Matthews of Obama legs tingle fame and Rachel Maddow of Trump/Russia fame decide what is journalism for the vast bulk of the Mainstream Media . . . and all too many leftists seem to be just fine with that.

 

You mean the all Hillary Clinton donors investigators? Gosh . . . I wonder why.

 

Don't fall for it man! It's a trap!

 

Barr said four types of information, as defined by Barr, would be redacted from the report he submits to Congress: grand jury material, classified information, material tied to ongoing investigation, and information that could harm "peripheral third parties."

Grand jury material and classified information? Because only Congress can declare war and, according to the War Powers Resolution, Congress can end a war started by the President, Congress receives the most up-to-date intelligence produced by our intell agencies. However, according to Trump's hired gun, parts of the Mueller Report are too sensitive for Congressional ears.

Does that make sense to anyone?

Material tied to ongoing investigation? Barr is telling Congress he will withhold from Congress any evidence of Trump's involvement with hush money payoffs to a porn star and a playboy bunny, money laundering, tax fraud, and campaign fraud because those are matters of "ongoing investigations."

Gotta admit, Barr has balls.

Information that could harm "peripheral third parties?" This creative rule from Barr is of far more concern than the others, and that is saying something. This rule allows Barr to withhold any or all evidence regarding Trump. He does not define "third parties." He does not define second parties, or first parties. Is Trump a "third party" by Barr's own definition of a third party? We do not know. Barr never mentions Trump.

That, in and of itself, is problematic. The DOJ has two rules. The first rule is, the DOJ will not indict a sitting President. The second rule is, they will not make public incriminating evidence of a person if they are not going to indict that person. Barr has never mentioned Trump.

Does that mean Trump could be that "person." Even though nearly the entire focus of the Mueller investigation was on the President, Barr has never made the distinction between some mythical "person" and the President of the United States.

There is one thing we know from Barr's testimony today. Because he regarded the Mueller Report as "fatally misconceived" and his belief of the "unitary executive," Barr is doing his level best to protect Trump.

This could backfire on Trump. By nature, Americans are suspicious. They immediately become suspicious when a politician hides behind a lawyer and legal hocus-pocus.

 

We naturally assume the Department of Justice and its chief, the attorney general, will protect our Constitution and that he works for the American people.

That is not true in the case of William P. Barr. Barr works for Donald J.Trump.

 

Kind of been wondering, since there has been no news of Mueller leaving his position, but learned on the news this evening that Robert Mueller and AG Barr are working together on the report to be released in about a week, choosing the redactions, and writing the footnotes that explain the reason why each redaction was made.

Nothing could be more legal, sensible, and fair than that.

 

Unnamed sources eh?

 

Those for rules aren't of his making. They are required redactions according to the special Counsel law. I like those phoney Barr quotes. Typical of #FakeNews liberalism.

 

What in the world does Congress's ability to declare war have to do with the secrecy of Grand Juries? That's a very odd reach you are attempting....very odd....

 

I see an awful lot of hooey coming from Trumpists about the rules governing the special counsel. It might be wise for some of you to listen to what one of the people who wrote the rules has to say.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow...-special-counsel-process-katyal-1485061699719

 

Lawyer who helped write special counsel rules says Mueller report can be released

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...special-counsel-rules-says-mueller-report-can

*Neal Katyal, who helped draft the special counsel rules as a Justice Department lawyer in the late 1990s, said Friday that Attorney General William Barr can and should release special counsel Robert Mueller's final report.

Katyal, in an op-ed in The Washington Post, wrote that there are no regulations preventing Barr from publicizing Mueller’s findings, which were delivered to Barr late Friday afternoon.

“The public has every right to see Robert S. Mueller III's conclusions. Absolutely nothing in the law or the regulations prevents the report from becoming public. Indeed, the relevant sources of law give Attorney General P. William Barr all the latitude in the world to make it public,”*

 

You mean the attorney general?

I don't ask you to watch Alex Jones so don't ask us to watch conspiracy theorist Rachel Maddow.

Why don't you tell us what we have wrong?

 

So the guy who wrote the law says there's no such law?