Mueller report: It doesn't tell us how it knows some things.

Who is questioning Barr?

 

So you would never make an appearance in a court or go before an investigator if you were being investigated or on trial? I'm not sure that would work too well for you. In most cases, your lawyer COULDN'T represent you without your presence, could they?

 

When did Mueller go public with what he thought about Barr's conclusion?

 

Senate Judiciary committee.. right now.

 

I'm amused at CNN's informality, they report Barr is being "grilled"! He did say something that caught my attention; how with 3 former US Attorneys in Trump's campaign team, given the evident concern the FBI had over Russian meddling, why didn't anyone at the FBI inform the Trump campaign of their concern?

 

The briefings were led by counterintelligence specialists from the FBI, the sources said. They were timed to occur around the period when the candidates began receiving classified intelligence, the officials said, which put them at greater risk for being targeted by foreign spies. Trump's first intelligence briefing as Republican nominee was Aug. 17, 2016, sources told NBC News at the time.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...ans-would-try-infiltrate-his-campaign-n830596

 

There are numerous other related cases still to be tried in the New York Federal courts information pertinent to their prosecution may have been omitted from the Mueller report.

 

The FBI for the last 4 years has not been a reliable source if information due to deep seated animus against Trump

 

The memo was sent to Barr on 3/27. Barr testified on 4/10.
I think Barr brought the letter with him today, but it leaked yesterday.

 

Although Mueller did find people working for Trump's campaign may have been informed by or responsive to the Russian government's interference, he didn't think that what he had found was sufficient to obtain a conviction. He found something, just not enough. What he found is in the Report, I've actually read it, nothing jumped out as conclusive evidence of collusion, a lot of what might be seemed based on conjecture, and some that could be is based on questionable investigatory procedures.

Mueller is an experienced criminal prosecutor, he does know the limits of what is admissible evidence to secure a criminal conviction, in fact he has a lot of experience pushing the outer limits of evidentiary admissibility, and we know of numerous instances during the course of his investigation when evidence gathered by Mueller would be plainly inadmissible. We don't know how leads followed from improperly obtained FISA warrants, protected attorney-client communications or work-product, may have premised investigations of distinct possibly collusive instances. Mueller knows the quality of his evidence, he may have reached his conclusion because he realized much of the evidence he had would be inadmissible in a criminal proceeding.

 

That was from the anonymous source in the media report.

 

Irrelevant since the report is public and Mueller’s job ended when he turned over the report. A whiny letter does not change the report.

 

No, from Hicks.
But you can pull a Barr now and claim the quote is not the same as the news article.

 

When it comes to lying to Congress, it is not irrelevant.
Mueller still works at the DOJ. Not sure why, but he does.

 

Barr didn’t lie to Congress. That is just another baseless charge by desperate democrats.

 

Nancy says it's a lie. And we all know how those arguments come out.

 

Probably because that gives Trump a tiny chance to stop him from telling the truth to Congress, and we know the truth is what Trump fears the most.

 

Seriously professor? The POTUS doesn't suffer redactions unless he wants to. Barr didn't "edit" anything.

 

The president can barely read the sports page. He can handle the comics as long as they are only two frames, don't have a lot of balloons. He sure as hell did not read the report and make decisions on what does and does not need redaction. That was Barr.

 

See if you can read this for the class professor ...
https://democratdossier.com/dossier/
See ... Henry Greenberg gets mentioned 1 time, and none of what's in my link is mentioned at all. Same for Veselnitskaya and Trump Tower. Mueller whining about "lack of context"

 

You are funny. Do you read the posts you reply to? Here it is again. "The president can barely read the sports page. He can handle the comics as long as they are only two frames, don't have a lot of balloons. He sure as hell did not read the report and make decisions on what does and does not need redaction. That was Barr." You have anything relevant to that post to offer? Its the one you quoted.

 

My bad ... but your intro ... "barely read" ... YES that is as far as I read. U mad? Huh ... I don't care.

 

Yep. Bonespurs' vocabulary is at the 4th grade level, so you're correct.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-fire-and-fury-smart-genius-obama-774169

 

What do you mean he doesn't "SUFFER redactions?"