Mueller Investigation pt 6

[dasmiller]

You're alleging that Barr told them, in secret, to lie about his conversation with Mueller. Yeah, that's a conspiracy theory all right.

Well, according to Mueller's letter, Barr's summary "did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this office's work and conclusions."

According to the DOJ spokesperson, who is presumably taking Barr's word for the nature of the phone call, Mueller didn't think the summary was inaccurate.

Either Mueller changed his mind or the DOJ spokesperson is not accurately representing Mueller's views, because I don't believe that a summary can simultaneously be accurate while misrepresenting the report's conclusions.

 

[dasmiller]

You're alleging that Barr told them, in secret, to lie about his conversation with Mueller. Yeah, that's a conspiracy theory all right.

Not necessarily. Barr could have simply misrepresented the call to his staff.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, according to Mueller's letter, Barr's summary "did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this office's work and conclusions."

According to the DOJ spokesperson, who is presumably taking Barr's word for the nature of the phone call, Mueller didn't think the summary was inaccurate.

Either Mueller changed his mind or the DOJ spokesperson is not accurately representing Mueller's views, because I don't believe that a summary can simultaneously be accurate while misrepresenting the report's conclusions.

That's actually trivially easy to reconcile: it can be accurate but not complete.

Alternatively, since these statements came at different times, Mueller's view of Barr's letter to Congress may have softened after talking to Barr about it directly.

 

[Bogative]

"When Barr pressed Mueller on whether he thought Barr’s memo to Congress was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not but felt that the media coverage of it was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said."

 

[dasmiller]

That's actually trivially easy to reconcile: it can be accurate but not complete.

A summary can be accurate while missing the "nature and substance" of the conclusions?

Alternatively, since these statements came at different times, Mueller's view of Barr's letter to Congress may have softened after talking to Barr about it directly.

I said as much.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...82d3f3d96d5_story.html?utm_term=.5dcff8e2a66b

"A day after Mueller sent his letter to Barr, the two men spoke by phone for about 15 minutes, according to law enforcement officials.
...
When Barr pressed Mueller on whether he thought Barr’s memo to Congress was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not but felt that the media coverage of it was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said."

So much for all those Trump conspiracy theorists here who claim that Barr is lying to cover up Trump's crimes.

I take it the concept of people not calling each other out professionally eludes you?

Not to mention here again we don't have Mueller's letter or a transcript of the call, we have someone else's summary.

Finally, we know what Barr said, the report did not exonerate Trump. We also know the clever narrative that made that fact disappear into the woodwork as Trump repeated over and over, no collusion, no obstruction.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So if I understand your position correctly, you're perfectly happy that your President...

- enables right wing hate groups
- divides the country along race lines
- promotes the separation of children from their families
- supports keeping those children in cages
- has lied to the American public over 10,000 times in this two years
- promotes the use of fossil fuels
- has used emergency powers to build a vanity monument
- is a verifiable criminal and fraudster
- is a confirmed misogynist and fine with assaulting women
- has alienated your traditional allies while rolling over for the dictator of a hostile foreign power
- has made your country a laughing stock to the rest of the world

Pretty good summary there.

 

[Ziggurat]

I take it the concept of people not calling each other out professionally eludes you?

Do you think Mueller would refrain from calling out Barr if Barr completely misrepresented the report?

Not to mention here again we don't have Mueller's letter or a transcript of the call, we have someone else's summary.

Just like every single FBI case where a subject supposedly lied to investigators: we only have someone else's summary of what they said.

Finally, we know what Barr said, the report did not exonerate Trump.

It exonerated him on any criminal conspiracy with Russia. And since Mueller refused to come to a judgment about Trump on obstruction, Barr was left to make that call. So he did.

 

[Ziggurat]

A summary can be accurate while missing the "nature and substance" of the conclusions?

He didn't say it was missing the "nature and substance" of the conclusions. He said it "did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this office's work and conclusions." That can include mostly capturing the "context, nature and substance". Again, accurate doesn't mean complete.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Do you think Mueller would refrain from calling out Barr if Barr completely misrepresented the report?

Yes, but define "calling out". The letter called Barr out as far as professionals typically do. I work in a profession where people are extremely cautious in how they call another professional out.

It exonerated him on any criminal conspiracy with Russia. And since Mueller refused to come to a judgment about Trump on obstruction, Barr was left to make that call. So he did.

That's not what the report says at all. So right here you buy the Barr/Trump narrative, like other Trump supporters do. Barr did the job Trump hired him to do.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

He didn't say it was missing the "nature and substance" of the conclusions. He said it "did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this office's work and conclusions." That can include mostly capturing the "context, nature and substance". Again, accurate doesn't mean complete.

Why is it you think Mueller wrote a letter to Barr?

 

[smartcooky]

That's not what the report says at all. So right here you buy the Barr/Trump narrative, like other Trump supporters do. Barr did the job Trump hired him to do.

Its sure isn't

I think, perhaps, that Zig hasn't read the report.

 

[carlosy]

So if I understand your position correctly, you're perfectly happy that your President...

- enables right wing hate groups
- divides the country along race lines
- promotes the separation of children from their families
- supports keeping those children in cages
- has lied to the American public over 10,000 times in this two years
- promotes the use of fossil fuels
- has used emergency powers to build a vanity monument
- is a verifiable criminal and fraudster
- is a confirmed misogynist and fine with assaulting women
- has alienated your traditional allies while rolling over for the dictator of a hostile foreign power
- has made your country a laughing stock to the rest of the world

Whatever it takes to drive the followers of the other tribe (angry Democrat mob) into insanity.

 

[Cabbage]

First you said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...82d3f3d96d5_story.html?utm_term=.5dcff8e2a66b

"A day after Mueller sent his letter to Barr, the two men spoke by phone for about 15 minutes, according to law enforcement officials.
...
When Barr pressed Mueller on whether he thought Barr’s memo to Congress was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not but felt that the media coverage of it was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said."

So much for all those Trump conspiracy theorists here who claim that Barr is lying to cover up Trump's crimes.

....followed up by:

That's actually trivially easy to reconcile: it can be accurate but not complete.
Alternatively, since these statements came at different times, Mueller's view of Barr's letter to Congress may have softened after talking to Barr about it directly.

When the lack of completeness refers to significant evidence of obstruction of justice missing from the summary, that absolutely IS a lie of omission.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Whatever it takes to drive the followers of the other tribe (angry Democrat mob) into insanity.

even at the cost of the country?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

No wonder Barr doesn't want to go back to the Judicial Committee: he either has to lie then, or admit that he lied last time he was there.

 

[smartcooky]

even at the cost of the country?

Yes, because GOP is the party of "party before country"

They would quite happily see the USA slide into a Trump dictatorship, so long as THEY were the party of that dictatorship.

 

[Foolmewunz]

The Mueller letter is getting spot coverage in the right wing media. Poor old Breitbart has no money to do actual reporting, though, and in the "Boss In Trouble. Must React." mode, they ran with "Mueller says Barr report didn't pick up nuances, but doesn't say it was wrong." They've revised their lead and headline four times over six hours.

Fox hasn't covered it nationally. The Hill, NY Mag Intelligencer, CNN, The Beeb, NYT, WaPo, etc... have.

I have to appreciate the paleo parrots having to step out on their own with only Breitbart to fall back on for direction to tilt the spinarama.

 

[Lurch]

Do you think Mueller would refrain from calling out Barr if Barr completely misrepresented the report?



Just like every single FBI case where a subject supposedly lied to investigators: we only have someone else's summary of what they said.



It exonerated him on any criminal conspiracy with Russia. And since Mueller refused to come to a judgment about Trump on obstruction, Barr was left to make that call. So he did.

Barr was most emphatically NOT left to make that call.

CONGRESS was.

Barr was upset that Mueller's work was decidedly a punt not to be myself as AG, but instead to Congress.

Which was why Barr sat on the report for three weeks after putting out into the ecosphere his own spin. Whereupon Mueller almost immediately thereafter memorialized, for all time, his displeasure to Barr in a letter. A letter which normally is not created except in extremis due to the historical impact.

The Special Counsel regulations were specifically crafted to ensure that a fair and unbiased investigation could be undertaken by taking out of the loop any political interference, including by the top legal officer in the land, and that any nefarious meddling by an AG would be brought to light.

We are seeing in real time the wisdom of Neal Katyal's 1999 strategy when drafting the SC regs.

And Barr has now utterly sullied what good reputation he once possessed, cementing his position in the history books as yet another Trump enabler to go down in willing ignominy. As a certain book has it, everything Trump touches dies. What a chapter is being written for the history of the US. Watergate, more over.

 

[smartcooky]

No wonder Barr doesn't want to go back to the Judicial Committee: he either has to lie then, or admit that he lied last time he was there.

Well there is no "admit that he lied" about it. Barr did lie under oath!

On April 10, in front of the Senate, Barr was asked "Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion" . He answered "I don't know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion"

However, he saw Bob Mueller's letter on March 27, so he knew exactly what Mueller thought, two weeks before he testified...... Barr lied to Congress... under oath.