NY Times: Mueller Report More Damaging Than Barr Let On

In this they are like advocates of socialism. Yes they are ALWAYS wrong but they have bone deep FAITH that the very next time they try their economic voodoo and cultural engineering scheme . . . it . . . will . . . work.

 

"We've got testimony Trump overcharged on his newspaper route and lemonade stand.......at the age of 10"

Source: NYT

 

The investigators were not charged with finding how "troubling" things might be. They were charged to find out if any crimes or collusion or obstruction occurred. Mueller, the AG, the DAG the OLC of the DOJ said no they have no evidence to show that. Should we expect all 20 or so attornies would agree exactly? No but the best that the NYT has is well is wasn't THAT good, just OK. Either charge him or not then shut up. Don't then go out an insinuate well it's still there..............

 

And did not tip the waiter at the age of 23. And Barr did not include these facts in his report. COVER UP. RESIST

 

Just curious.............what's the cost of that fish wrap anyway at the news stand? Do they give them out free or give you a buck to walk away with one? That rag is worth less than the Inquirer.

 

There’s those unnamed sources again that got it so right last time.

Bwahahahaha!

 

The results of the investigation there was or there was not collusion, there was or there was not obstruction are what matters. The "welllllll on a scale of 1 to 10 it was a 3 not a 2" whining has no place here. It's over, get over it.

 

One of the most interesting lines from the article is this one

SNIP
Mr. Barr and his advisers expressed concern that if they included derogatory information about Mr. Trump while clearing him, they would face a storm of criticism like what Mr. Comey endured in the Clinton investigation.
ENDSNIP

That's a load of crap... nobody asked Barr to include or exclude derogatory information about Trump.... Barr's 2 jobs (and he's reportedly doing one of them now) is to redact stuff from the public version of the report, while simultaneously getting the full report and source material to Nadler and Schiff. It's pretty simple.

It's Nadler's job to determine if any "derogatory information" about Trump requires Judiciary Committee action. It's Schiff's job to determine
if Trump (and others in the campaign) are counterintelligence risks to the US

 

You said, you said, you said. Who's "you?" I didn't say these things. Most of us on that "radical left" you keep pulling out like a kid's cap gun are a figment of someone's imagination. A lot of us Independent's advised everyone to cool down and see where this goes because nobody has a clue yet. Well, we still don't. Anyone that thinks he/she does is delusional.

 

We've heard for two years..........where there is smoke, there is fire. The Fire Inspector just sent in a report and said the building is still standing with no Russians inside. Unfortunately, they looked in the wrong building, the house that Obama built.

 

Bar specifically stated that his four page letter was a notification.

If this is a true story, then the NY Times is going to have reveal their sources under § 600.8 (c)

Members of the Special Counsel legal team or public dissemination entities do not hold immunity from unauthorized disclosure of a report that includes grand jury information.

The NY Times knows that the information is protected.

Will be interesting to see if Barr calls each member of the legal team in for a conduct review.

 

Hahaha!

 

Another anon source spiced up with loads of opinion mixed in "AGAIN? One would think you folks would have learned. It's kinda sad to watch the majority of a party lose their ever luvin mind. Actually it's kinda entertaining watching them delude themselves.

 

Please let us know who spoke up. Include a link with a viable named source, just for grins.

 

Y'all know it's true. Everyone knew it was true before the NYT reported it. That investigation lasted for two years. There is absolutely no way that nothing negative was uncovered regarding Trump. Look at the way he acts, the things he constantly says and does. If he acts that badly when the public is watching, imagine what he is capable of when he isn't being observed.

 

When did the NY Times ever assert that Trump colluded with Russia?

 

Well considering how wrong they've been proven to be about all the other conspiracy theories?

 

Release the report and that will put ALL the rumors and accusations to rest.

 

I was a kid during the war (that's what we old guys called WWII)...and throughout my life I have always wondered how a guy like Adolf Hitler was able to attract so many people to his cause...and to keep them in his fold.

How could he do it...when he obviously was such a despicable individual; his ideology was so odious; and the mental masturbation needed to support him and the ideology he espoused were so grueling?

The last few years have given me more insights into how he did it than all the many years before them.

The New York Times is a fine newspaper...the kind of paper this country needed (and needs) to stay the nation we are.

The people excoriating the Times in defense of Trump and in defense of ideology...should hide their heads in shame.

I doubt they will. They have no shame. I just hope they do not learn what fools they are...the way the supporters of Hitler and his ideology learned.

 

The Mueller report is going to become the left's DaVinci Code.They're going to obsessively pore over every word and redaction looking for the arcane patterns which they can then decipher in order to reveal the location of the sacred ark of the impeachment which will melt Trump's face.

 

Trump agrees with you and will not use executive privilege. He appears to be happy so you might want to rethink your wish as it may be another one of those things that bites back.

 

They could release the entire report, but with a single word redacted, and, to the NEVUR-TRUMPERS, the damning proof of collusion would surely be hidden under that single black stripe.

 

/Facepalm. Unless the NYT read it themselves they need to just s t f u already.

 

And yet he's still POTUS. Go 'anonymous' sources!....

 

So is the NY times story based on leaks from the Special Counsel?

Hmmm, very interesting or very predictable?

Considering the democrat playbook of fake news and dirty tricks when they do not get their way I would say the odds are this is more political moves.

These leaks could be totally bogus. The democrats are not above lying, cheating or stealing these days.