Russia, the U.S.A., and the White House Administration

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Actually, this isn't grandstanding. Barr said there would be redactions when he releases the report. The subpoena would push for the redactions not to happen, if I'm understanding this right.

You want to publish the name of CIA deep cover agents?

 

Actually go for it, the Democrats getting Americans killed for politics is par for course

[Nathanael D. Striker]

You want to publish the name of CIA deep cover agents?

 

Actually go for it, the Democrats getting Americans killed for politics is par for course

 

I said if I'm understanding this right. That should be a clue that I'm not entirely sure what the Committee is trying to do, though I can only imagine it isn't grandstanding.

[Phantom Roxas]

I said if I'm understanding this right. That should be a clue that I'm not entirely sure what the Committee is trying to do, though I can only imagine it isn't grandstanding.

 

I'd say you're on the right track, and that they are trying to get the unredacted report. Republicans should not be allowed to keep burying evidence.

[Phantom Roxas]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/04/03/mueller-report-house-panel-authorizes-subpoena-full-report-ag-barr/3333346002/

 

The House has successfully authorized subpoenas for the full report, and evidence from Steven Bannon, Hope Hicks, Reince Priebus, Donald McGahn, and Ann Donaldson.

 

Ooh, this is going to be great.

[Phantom Roxas]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/03/us/politics/william-barr-mueller-report.html

 

Members of the special counsel investigation revealed that William Barr failed to adequately portray the findings in their inquiry, because it was in fact more damaging against Trump on charges of obstruction. It's almost as if people were right to be concerned about Barr misleading people with his "summary"! While Trump was neither convicted nor exonerated, evidence was laid out on both sides of the question, so once more the claim that "There is no evidence whatsoever" manages to be a complete lie.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/03/us/politics/william-barr-mueller-report.html

 

Members of the special counsel investigation revealed that William Barr failed to adequately portray the findings in their inquiry, because it was in fact more damaging against Trump on charges of obstruction. It's almost as if people were right to be concerned about Barr misleading people with his "summary"! While Trump was neither convicted nor exonerated, evidence was laid out on both sides of the question, so once more the claim that "There is no evidence whatsoever" manages to be a complete lie.

I was waiting for you to post this.

 

It's 2000 words from a few nameless sources on the Mueller team who don't even say what Barr left out

 

AGAIN when Mueller felt he was being lied about, Buzzfeed, he had his team correct it in a hours time

 

Also Barr Quotes directly from the Mueller report so "yeah"

[Phantom Roxas]

The special counsel did not offer any specific corrections, and do you really think the sources on this story are in any position to reveal what Barr left out?

 

https://www.justsecurity.org/62314/buzzfeed-trump-directed-cohen-lie-encourage-procure-suborn-perjury-false-statement/

 

Cohen's own sentencing memo indicates that he was in contact with "Client-1", whom Cohen publicly confirmed was Trump, and it was plainly clear that Trump would have at least been aware that Cohen was going to lie. Even if you want to claim that Mueller disproved BuzzFeed's report that Trump suborned perjury, it is a fact that Trump knew in advance that Cohen was going to commit perjury, and made no effort to prevent that.

 

https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Gov-Uscourts-Nysd-505539-8-0.pdf

 

"We address the campaign finance and false statements allegations together because both arose from Michael’s fierce loyalty to Client-1. In each case, the conduct was intended to benefit Client-1, in accordance with Client-1’s directives."

 

Cohen also publicly testified that Trump wanted him to lie to Congress. You're focusing exclusively on Peter Carr's statement about Buzzfeed, but we have corroborating evidence and testimonies that do implicate Trump here.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Barr made two central assertions re Mueller’s top line: 1) Trump camp didn’t conspire/coordinate w Russians. 2) Mueller laid out evidence on both sides of obstruction Q, but chose to stay neutral on charges. Anonymous sources have disputed neither.

 

I’ve always assumed there will be bad stuff for Trump in the Mueller report because some bad stuff has been public for months. We’ll see it soon. Barr knows that if he mischaracterized Mueller’s big takeaways, his reputation would be shattered.

[Phantom Roxas]

The sources indicate that the evidence proving obstruction did happen is stronger than Barr led the public to believe. Barr attacked the special counsel investigation publicly, refused to recuse himself from the investigation, and admitted during his confirmation hearing that he would ignore ethics officials just because he would feel differently than they would. His reputation has already been weakened, so any confirmation that he would mischaracterized Mueller's big takeaways would just be the finishing blow.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

The sources indicate that the evidence proving obstruction did happen is stronger than Barr led the public to believe. Barr attacked the special counsel investigation publicly, refused to recuse himself from the investigation, and admitted during his confirmation hearing that he would ignore ethics officials just because he would feel differently than they would. His reputation has already been weakened, so any confirmation that he would mischaracterized Mueller's big takeaways would just be the finishing blow.

Mueller's office public ally rebuked the last person that lied about them. Why is Robert Mueller resorting to anons with scarce details if he was really upset with Barr. Also since you like to ignore information that is inconvenient. 

 

Firstly the leaks are secondhand, coming from the friends and "associates" of an unknown number of Mueller investigators, of unknown seniority within the probe. Here's the Times:

 

Secondly, Barr Specifically said there was evidence of obstruction, and also evidence of it not being there. He didn't need to say that if he was in for the cover -up

 

Third, WAPO admits that there was contention in the Mueller team on if obstruction was met. What you're holding up as the gold standard are lower level agents who feel they know better than Mueller

 

Fourth, Barr literally quoted Mueller on both his conclusion for Collusion and Obstruction. Unless Robert Mueller is in on it, you're chasing a pipe dream

[Nathanael D. Striker]

 

Going to leave this here. An attorney's thoughts on the matter, so to speak.

[Phantom Roxas]

Carr dismissing BuzzFeed about something that Cohen's publicly testimony confirmed anyway (Seriously, you're going to accuse me of ignoring information when you outright ignore that?) is not the same as if Mueller were to call out Barr. They had every right to criticize Buzzfeed (Even though Buzzfeed was largely proven right anyway, since the dispute was about semantics at best), but Barr is well within his right to mischaracterize the report. It's an abuse of power to be certain, but Mueller stepped out of his role to let Barr present his conclusions. I can't see Mueller immediately turning around and saying "Wait, no, not like that."

 

Yes, I'm aware of what the sources are. And it's largely amounted to another incentive to subpoena Barr and the others for the summaries and evidence as soon as possible.

 

I did not dispute the evidence of it not being there. The fact there is evidence on both sides of the question is all the more reason why we need to see that evidence to formally draw a conclusion. Barr attacking the special counsel investigation before he was even nominated makes it possible that he was approaching this with confirmation bias. He was never going to seriously consider the evidence of obstruction as proof beyond a reasonable doubt. He need did to say that to give himself more legitimacy. If he had claimed that there was no evidence whatsoever, it would have made it ridiculously obvious that he's lying because we know there is evidence for both sides. In this case, it's a token acknowledgment of the evidence just for the sake of him dismissing it anyway.

 

If there was contention, then that backs up the report. Whether those agents are right to believe they know better than Mueller isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially since the current issue at hand is about Congress obtaining evidence on whether obstruction was met. That contention is not exclusive to those agents; it's the very center of the current debate.

 

Barr quoted Mueller to state that Mueller made no conclusion on obstruction. Barr (And Rosenstein, who frankly should be held to at least half the scrutiny that Barr has been held to) made their own conclusion, separate from Mueller's.

 

https://www.vox.com/2019/3/24/18279973/mueller-report-quotes-barr-letter

 

Also, Barr's (few) quotes from Mueller are very carefully worded, and seem to be taken out of context. It's also bizarre that Barr specifically cites WikiLeaks but refuses to connect it to the Trump Campaign, even though Mueller confirmed that he had evidence of Roger Stone's communications with WikiLeaks regarding the hacked emails. That's a blatant discrepancy between the summary and evidence that we know was obtained.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

If Mueller had evidence of Stone engaging in espionage with a Russian actor, wouldn't Mueller charge him on that. Your arguments all largely boil down to resorting to hanging someone in the court of public opinion through deception because your side couldn't win in actual court.

 

The report will be out in full, and I look forward to continuing this then :)

[Phantom Roxas]

Mueller revealed the evidence when he filed his charges against Stone. And, again, Cohen's testimony all but confirmed the Buzzfeed report.

 

The current arguments are about why the case needs to be brought into actual court.

[Phantom Roxas]

https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/437414-paul-blocks-resolution-calling-for-release-of-mueller-report

 

"The dossier is irrelevant," vla1ne says.

"You're trying to hang an innocent man for a crime he didn't commit," Winter says.

 

Yeah, you both can cut the crap already. The GOP is still obsessed with the dossier, and are trying to flip this into an investigation against Obama years after he's already left office. Their motive is just "But what about Obama and Clinton?" Spare me the narrative that Trump is some innocent victim when the GOP's main strategy here has been to deflect so they could score political points against people who don't even matter anymore. The dossier remains relevant because Rand Paul has openly admitted that he will continue to block the report until he gets more information about the dossier.

[Phantom Roxas]

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/remembering-the-starr-report-as-we-await-the-mueller-report.html

 

I'm sorry, what was that about how no other president has ever been subjected to the same depth of an investigation that Trump has?

[Phantom Roxas]

"A.G. Bill Barr says that he tried to use as much of the Special Counsel's language as possible in his four page memo. Barr included four incomplete sentences from the Mueller report." https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1115624284708331520

 

"A.G. Bill Barr says that he did not think about having Mueller and his team help prepare his four page memo. Asked why he didn’t, Barr responds: 'Because it was my letter.'" https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1115626698702295041

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/04/09/ag-william-barr-faces-congress-first-time-after-mueller-report-house-hearing/3400383002/

 

Barr's redacted report will be released within a week.

[Phantom Roxas]

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/11/712128612/julian-assange-arrested-in-london

 

Julian Assange has finally been arrested. While his charges are from 2010, I've been hoping for him to be arrested regardless, so at least this is something.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

So much for the lefts love of freedom of the press

[Phantom Roxas]

Spare me. You've consistently supported Trump attacking the freedom of the press. Don't start clutching your pearls now that Trump is using him as a scapegoat.

 

He ran away to avoid allegations of rape, and considering that he's being charged for his part in a hacking conspiracy, this is not some sudden hypocrisy about the freedom of the press.

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/julian-assange-is-not-a-journalist/

 

Assange is no hero.

[cr47t]

So much for the lefts love of freedom of the press

hold it right there. you're going off again taking the actions of the vocal left (or in this case, a small section of the vocal left, which is even worse), twisting it, and slapping it onto the entire left. there's a difference. this pigeonholing by you has to funking stop because it does nothing to further or improve political discourse but instead it only detrioriates it 100% of the time. if i didn't know better i'd say that's why you're doing it and the way i'll know that's what's going on is if you keep using it as the taking point and punchline you use it as now.

 

we need to stop labeling people with -isms as negative smears (in your case, an indirect "liberalism" smear ("the left")) in an attempt to boost our own -isms and start seeing them as human beings first. if we want to solve problems, such as the crisis facing freedom of the press, we need to start with de-toxicizing the poltiical discussion. it's too hostile to get anything done the way it is now and attitudes like the one you're exhibiting don't help one tiny bit.

 

on the rest i agree with roxas, but that's besides my point.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

hold it right there. you're going off again taking the actions of the vocal left (or in this case, a small section of the vocal left, which is even worse), twisting it, and slapping it onto the entire left. there's a difference. this pigeonholing by you has to funking stop because it does nothing to further or improve political discourse but instead it only detrioriates it 100% of the time. if i didn't know better i'd say that's why you're doing it and the way i'll know that's what's going on is if you keep using it as the taking point and punchline you use it as now.

 

we need to stop labeling people with -isms as negative smears (in your case, an indirect "liberalism" smear ("the left")) in an attempt to boost our own -isms and start seeing them as human beings first. if we want to solve problems, such as the crisis facing freedom of the press, we need to start with de-toxicizing the poltiical discussion. it's too hostile to get anything done the way it is now and attitudes like the one you're exhibiting don't help one tiny bit.

 

on the rest i agree with roxas, but that's besides my point.

Are you talking about Roxas?

Spare me. You've consistently supported Trump attacking the freedom of the press. Don't start clutching your pearls now that Trump is using him as a scapegoat.

 

He ran away to avoid allegations of rape, and considering that he's being charged for his part in a hacking conspiracy, this is not some sudden hypocrisy about the freedom of the press.

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/julian-assange-is-not-a-journalist/

 

Assange is no hero.

I don't support freedom of the press. I don't pretend I do till it helps me to not do so like you though

[cr47t]

1)Are you talking about Roxas?

 

2) I don't support freedom of the press. I don't pretend I do till it helps me to not do so like you though

1. Of course not. I was talking about you. I thought you would infer that since I quoted your post in my own but I guess that basic methods of communication are just norms to be broken now rather than things vital to discussion. I try to urge all peoples to avoid pigeonholing but the extent you do it is disproportionate to Roxas from what I've seen.
2. why do you not support freedom of the press?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

 

1. Of course not. I was talking about you. I thought you would infer that since I quoted your post in my own but I guess that basic methods of communication are just norms to be broken now rather than things vital to discussion. I try to urge all peoples to avoid pigeonholing but the extent you do it is disproportionate to Roxas from what I've seen.
2. why do you not support freedom of the press?

 

"you're going off again taking the actions of the vocal left (or in this case, a small section of the vocal left, which is even worse), twisting it, and slapping it onto the entire left. there's a difference"

 

Who is this vocal left you speak of?

 

Because they have misused the power and standing?

[cr47t]

"you're going off again taking the actions of the vocal left (or in this case, a small section of the vocal left, which is even worse), twisting it, and slapping it onto the entire left. there's a difference"

 

1)Who is this vocal left you speak of?

 

2)Because they have misused the power and standing?

1. It's the term I try to use for the portion of the left that you see speak out, rather than the left as a whole. It's not representative of all liberals in existence, just the liberals whose political opinions you observe being espoused. A lot of people have a habit of acting as if "what you see is what there is" even though that isn't the case, and when people reduce groups of millions down to a word or a few words used in a sweeping manner but worded to not quite indicate that (examples include "muslims" or "the Left", but "all muslims" or "the entire Left" aren't included) that's an example. "vocal left" is meant to distinguish from that.
2. Maybe there are better solutions than just scrapping the protectional system entirely? When that's happened people's  lives (not just journalist's lives and their familie's, but the lives of their audience) have been put in danger, because important information that could make a crucial difference that would otherwise get to them did not because the powers that control the flow of information are no longer the editors and publishers themselves, but often an government authority or some other major power. I don't think you're the kind of person who'd want monopolized state press in the United States of all places, given how often power switches hands between parties and how much you'd (at least seem to) despise such power in the hands of Democrats. What other alternatives would you propose?