Ex-Trump lawyer slams Mueller report as a ‘fraud,’ cites misleading quote

Yup: Trump and Barr.

 

WoW, to bad the left can't extend that same lenience to the President

 

Open and shut case, fully documented, and publicly broadcast. :: Material omissions ... aka lying, withholding exculpatory evidence, proven conclusively. Devin Nunes goes further, saying the report is essentially represents fraud. There's a case to be made that US taxpayers were fleeced out of million$ by Mueller's oppo research team. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/de...raud-after-reading-flynn-voicemail-transcript No wonder Mueller refuses to testify. I wonder if Mueller has hired a defense attorney yet.

 

Paul7 is correct, and alt left talking points can't undo the devastation. Mueller is a "fraud" and MSM can't tamp this down.

 

There is no doubt that the transcript was edited. Was it deceitfully edited? Personally, I don't think so. The report was written for Barr and was footnoted to refer to the entire transcript, to which Barr had access. The salient part of the transcript - that was relevant to OOJ - was included in the text of the report, and the full transcript was attached to the report.
So the reader of the report - Barr - had everything.

I was just amused by icehole's “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" maxim. That doesn't apply only to sworn evidence (and by the way, Mueller's report was not given "under oath" ...). Because if you apply that maxim, no-one should believe anything Trump ever says.
You genuinely don't seem to care that Trump lies constantly. About things big and small. You excuse it on the basis that his lies are not made under oath. To me, that is no excuse.
People, including politicians, should be expected to tell the truth. We should be disappointed and even outraged when politicians are found to be lying, but thanks to people like you, Trump has normalised it. He will never submit to giving evidence under oath, so you will never criticise him for his lies, no matter how egregious they are.
Disgusting.

 

How was the transcript deceitfully edited? What changes, in your opinion?

 

The exculpatory portion was withheld intentionally. What Dowd conveyed was that despite the severance of the "joint defense" compact. the WH felt that Flynn had an obligation to keep WH counsel apprised of sensitive material Flynn might be asked to provide. Potentially info protected by national security, or foreign policy concerns. Trump voluntarily waived executive privilege, but that doesn't mean he couldn't invoke it if he felt he had to for security.

 

The far right talking points simply fall short and flat

 

So then, the Report should have presented the information by way of voicemail transcripts, so as to provide word for word accuracy? That would be an interesting report to read.

 

And probably twice as long... People aren't reading the report as it is..... We need "The Mueller Report for Dummies"...

 

You would think that, but it didn't happen. That's why there are folks who show some concern on the right. The left seem to be just blowing it off or not reporting on this as usual.

 

While this is true - it raises the question of how much other stuff in the report is fraud - questionable and so on.

This whole investigation was jaded from the get go - simply on the basis of Mueller leading it. Mueller has a long and sordid track record of violating the rules of justice, falsely imprisoning innocents, abuse of power and a host of other nefarious and despicable activities.

Put it this way - if Trump was leading such an investigation - would you trust it ?

What is equally - or perhaps even more disturbing - is that the MSM in general refuses to comment on this in any detail. Even on the right the criticism is often quite muted. Dershowitz - who I respect - was on Fox the other day and he stated that initially he thought Mueller would be impartial - perhaps referring to the fact that Mueller is a Republican. He then went on to describe how Mueller's statement smacked of partiality.

What I didn't understand is why Dershowitz would even suggest that Mueller would be impartial to begin with - given the guys track record.

My guess is that Dershowitz knows that this is a line that can not be crossed without severe consequences (as in never being invited to speak in the mainstream media again).

Forget Trump - Forget Russiagate - The fact that certain "necessary illusions" can not be challenged by the media - without severe repercussions - is well beyond troubling.

Dershowitz does however get back on track in referring to how Meuller went after various process crimes - in order to get people to "talk"/ make things up - go along with what ever narrative against Trump that Mueller wants to promote - in order for a lighter sentence.

Then you have the Papadopolous affair - which is even more disturbing -having him go on a trip (after he had given his resignation) where some bureaucrat acting on behalf of the CIA feeds him some info - "Russia has dirt on Hillary" - then later engages in a lie by claiming that this bureaucrat is a "Russian Operative" when the fellow was a CIA operative - and then using this meeting to try to frame Papadopulous.

 

That report is rumored to already be in Barr's skillful hands. It may yet drop this week.

 

You'll be waiting a long time.

 

"We also know this entire report by Mueller is a fraud. And we're going to find more of these things," Dowd said.


^ No doubt.

 

I think that Mueller would use the excuse that he didn't write that part of the report. The Mueller Report has numerous mistakes and/or outright lies. (I.E. The report accepted the Crowdstrike story just like the FBI did.)

The Dems CAN'T Impeach Trump because Weissman would have to testify without the benefit of being able to refuse to answer questions.

I don't see Nadler racing to subpoena Mueller. That was the whole point... The fake press conference where Mueller didn't answer any questions provided some cover for Nadler.

 

Are there government reports that provide word for word transcripts? If there were, they would not be 'reports' but, rather, transcripts.
Are you suggesting that you would have liked to see the transcripts, of all the testimonies, included in the report?

 

Not really. The House oversight committees will continue. Once they release enough dirt on Dirty Donnie, public opinion will change.

 

No, the left-wingers had two years to sway the public. Their time has passed.

 

I'm saying I agree with Dowd Mueller shouldn't change his words to fit his narrative.

 

Which was clearly the case.

OF course, Trump went on to try and get the White HOuse council to create a false memorandum too. Attempting to falsify documents in the midst of an investigation IS obstruction of justice.

 

More like 5 months.... before that, it was 24x7x365 cover up by the Republican led committees....

And even then, many said in January they wanted to wait for the Mueller report (why I'm not sure), so in reality we are about 7 weeks into operation OrangeManREALLYBad.....

 

He didn’t. Try again.

This isn’t the first episode of questionable or unprofessional behavior on Dowd’s part.

But then, he didn’t have much to work with in a lying schmuck like Trump.

Don’t get your hopes up.

 

More like a two year investigation and hundreds of interrogations and tens of thousands of pages of documentation handed over and millions of dollars spent.

No cover up. In fact SS Mueller admitted that the Trump administration cooperated with his investigation fully.

Put your vitriolic hate aside for just one moment.

 

"...the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any Trump Campaign official conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election." - Vol 1 p 9

End of story.