General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis message was self-deleted by its author
This message was self-deleted by its author (sfwriter) on Wed May 15, 2019, 10:01 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
handmade34
(24,074 posts)there was no collusion and no one charged but we haven't seen anything in writing yet
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)"If the President does it, it's not illegal, because the President has absolute power."
Words to that effect anyway.
But duh, yeah, Barr is lying and mileading about the Mueller report. That's as plain as day, or we'd have the report already.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)But Barr does not walk with that notion of "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." His weaselly letter contained just enough fact to avoid calling it a pack of lies. Barr is a very experienced hand at standing words on their heads.
Qutzupalotl
(15,858 posts)I don’t think Barr lied per se (although he did spin) but I do think the Mueller report will be damning.
Barr’s letter had to focus on Mueller’s narrow purview. But Mueller doubtless encountered bad, suspicious or criminal behavior and might be able to describe it soon. He might still have to withhold details, especially around people not charged and cases not resolved.
It’s worth remembering that Mueller has handed off investigations that were outside his remit to appropriate entities, thus protecting those lines of inquiry from being shut down. They continue.
onecaliberal
(36,594 posts)
toddwv
(2,831 posts)They can weasel those weasel words right out of him.
Bev54
(13,524 posts)I hope he falls in!
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)dlk
(13,347 posts)...how could Mueller’s report not contain very damaging information?
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)Something people do on the internet to win arguments against people who fall for that type of bullcrap.
csziggy
(34,189 posts)He agrees with Dick Nixon on this:
The following is an excerpt from an interview with former President Nixon conducted by David Frost. It aired on television on May 19, 1977.
<SNIP>
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211956893
Nixon: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.
http://landmarkcases.org/en/Page/722/Nixons_Views_on_Presidential_Power_Excerpts_from_a_1977_Interview_with_David_Frost
rockfordfile
(8,742 posts)
rzemanfl
(31,468 posts)"Rec if you think Barr lied and the Mueller report is worse than he stated."
No one in this administration is truthful. It's a job requirement. See, e.g., "a fucking moron."
manor321
(3,344 posts)The Mueller report is going to be bad. If it was good they would have released it.
And, IMHO, Mueller will testify under oath that he did not expect Barr to make the decision.
onecaliberal
(36,594 posts)OnDoutside
(20,868 posts)
BigDemVoter
(4,708 posts)about Pussy Grabber BEFORE he became AG. . .
Evolve Dammit
(21,821 posts)
unitedwethrive
(2,016 posts)Um ... yes. It is the only way they can win a presidential election, and they know it.
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)yardwork
(69,681 posts)UniteFightBack
(8,231 posts)awful. All these contacts aren't collusion...sure yeah OK. Let's see the report. If it's laid out like I think with JUST THE FACTS then it will be clear to see just what the fuck was going on and trying to go on. I think it will be damning and the American People will be able to digest it and see clearly what the fuck here.
Pepsidog
(6,366 posts)dchill
(42,660 posts)It's why he was chosen for the job and installed. He's like a zero-ethics relief pitcher. He's spitting on the balls.
Jarqui
(10,927 posts)Maybe it wasn't a "lie" but it was deceptive - a misrepresentation of Mueller's report.
One might say "how do you know without seeing the report?"
My answer: because I followed the case and the indictments and Barr trying to say he couldn't indict for obstruction without an indictment on a charge - is so bogus, it's beyond wasting words.
democratisphere
(17,235 posts)Isn't that the same thing as lying?
donkeypoofed
(2,188 posts).....tell me all I need to know. It's Bad.
He would be gloating so much more if it was true. It's like he's just being told to gloat and is phoning it in.
zentrum
(9,870 posts)Last edited Wed Mar 27, 2019, 04:39 PM - Edit history (1)
....will always function as a frame, a "viable interpretation" that will be used to make the outcome a draw, even when the report is released.
His job was to inoculate the MAGA base against the reports and to give Repugs talking points forever more.
Details of the report, in a sense, won't matter, because there was no provable collusion with Russia.
Without absolute evidence, very little will happen to Trump but we'll argue about the "truth" for the next two years and beyond, and all the while underneath they will keep packing the court, removing environmental protections, increasing the deficit and preventing health care for women and the solvency of SS and Medicare.
Barr has utterely fulfilled his mandate.
better
(884 posts)We need to pay very close attention to their words, and what Barr said was not that there was no provable collusion with Russia, and we most certainly should not adopt the position of saying so for him.
What he said was that Mueller did not find that there was collusion.
What Mueller "did not find" is somewhere between utterly meaningless and potentially incriminating, if his investigation was shut down before he could complete the investigation. Further, you are translating what could at absolute best be "insufficient evidence to obtain a criminal conviction" into "no provable collusion". That's a fact absolutely not in evidence at this point, and given how much is known about things like the Trump Tower meeting, could not possibly be true. Trump Junior himself released emails that very clearly show collusion, in direct response to an offer of dirt on Secretary Clinton which he was explicitly told was part of the Russian Government's attempt to help elect his father.
And conspicuously absent from the Barr Spin is any assertion that Mueller was allowed to bring his investigation to its full and natural conclusion, without hinderance or obstruction.
zentrum
(9,870 posts)......badly. Of course the Barr scrim is a pile of rags.
Of course our side will pay attention, notice what's unsaid, what the law actually is, the damning time-line, the actual facts, etc.
My point was that his screed gives Fox State Propaganda and the Repugs enough to work with---so that they can (and here I repeat myself) inoculate their followers against the actual meaning of the report if it ever comes out. It gives them believable cover for months and months of incensed victimhood. (Not believable cover to you and me but believable cover to enough of the uninformed electorate.) In a matter of days it has already installed in their heads the interpretation Trump needs. And it's being echoed at the NYT's, on CNN and of course, Fox.
They are already screaming for Schiff to resign based on the "no collusion" in Barr's report.
That's exactly the kind of situation Barr was supposed to create, regardless of the eventual full release, if that ever happens.
better
(884 posts)I'm just very keenly aware of how easily many of us fall into the trap of phrasing things the way our opponents want them to be phrased, and trying to set an example of how we can tactfully make each other aware of what's going on when that happens.
zentrum
(9,870 posts)It's been hard to find the words to describe the effect of Barr without sounding like one accepts his 4 page nothing muffin.
DemsUnited
(1,273 posts)Two comprehensive years of investigation and we are just supposed to smile and nod and accept a 4 page “nothing to see here” summary from Barr? Please.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)If there's anything I've learned about this administration, it's that they either lie, embellish, poof, distract, misrepresent.... anything but the straight up truth.
wiggs
(8,861 posts)he's an institutionalist he may be trying to protect the POTUS office as an institution, the NY field office of the FBI, the perception of our election system, the perception of our overall strength in the world, etc..
That our president might be compromised, might be treasonous, might be incompetent, might be placed there by a foreign adversary would be earth-shattering news to institutionalists interested in the stability of our country and the world.
Could say the same about some dem leaders, perhaps Mueller, some gop leaders, certainly the nation's PTB/super wealthy...highest priority is protection of the institution, even over justice, truth, transparency.
I believe...I almost KNOW with certainty...that Trump's behavior has been worse than officially discussed. But it seems that -- except for pundits, some journalists, and some elected officials -- there's been an effort to ignore the obvious and plain-as-day dangers this president represents...as though they always knew this would end without the fireworks WE think there should be.
I still hold out hope that there are significant, mind-blowing legal and political shoes to drop, because...fairness and justice. Wait every day for it. But I can speculate that there are really strong, powerful forces in place that will keep that from happening.
Grasswire2
(13,849 posts)nothing to protect there.
Response to sfwriter (Original post)
sop This message was self-deleted by its author.
-Steph-
(409 posts)quoted much more than just a couple partial sentences. I believe the full report contains a lot of damaging information, which is why they don't want us to see it.
yardwork
(69,681 posts)
gordianot
(15,799 posts)Nixon should have destroyed all the tapes he would have remained President. Republicans seem to have learned their lesson in the age of Trump. Lies are all all they have left this cover up is in plain sight.
Actually all they have left is obstruction of justice Trump has already destroyed himself with health care.
Baitball Blogger
(52,736 posts)He can’t quote from the document and now he is wasting more of our time by writing another summary report that we won’t believe either. Given time, all of the shock value of the no collusion conclusion will wear off and we will demand an investigation of the investigation.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)
Meowmee
(9,212 posts)He covered himself somewhat with the part about not being able to exonerate of obstruction. We have seen public evidence of both.
treestar
(82,383 posts)That we would call a lie.
California_Republic
(1,826 posts)
Liberal In Texas
(16,439 posts)He's such an egotist he wouildn't be able to resist NOT making it public so he can shove it up our noses...just like what is happening with the "report."
Kota
(901 posts)Trump an illegitimate president. He would not have won with out Russia. Fake President will be the headline if the full report comes out.
niyad
(134,102 posts)https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211954786
exactly how bad IS the report if that stooge barr has to say, "does not exonerate trump"??
he was installed to protect that traitorous bastard, and yet, even he has to point out that the tangerine tyrant is not exonerated.
WE HAVE TO SEE THE FULL REPORT!!!!!!!!
corbettkroehler
(1,898 posts)
Generic Other
(29,083 posts)It's not that hard.
0rganism
(25,719 posts)the freshly-empowered southern states would probably use excerpts as their new literacy tests for voting site check-ins.
instead we have "hush hush, it's all good now. nothing to see here. move along now." this does not bode well for any of us. now it's up to Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats to dig for the truth through a mountain of DOJ red tape.
Botany
(77,897 posts)... that it will be weeks before they can release it as an edited summary.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211961493
Link to tweet
KPN
(17,517 posts)hiding and obscuring details and using ambiguous, misleading verbiage lying.
dlk
(13,347 posts)That much should be obvious. Otherwise, Republicans would have been happily stuffing the report down everyone's throat the moment it was issued.
Pacifist Patriot
(25,216 posts)and you couldn't walk down the street without tripping over a copy.
DirtEdonE
(1,220 posts)mueller wouldn't have presented conclusions or lack thereof that could make what barr did possible.
mueller tacitly vindicated trump with his no collusion and lack of indictment recommendations. barr simply carried out the obvious.
Kablooie
(19,123 posts)So lies are the foundation everything else is based on
Initech
(109,312 posts)The answer is a definite yes! 
onenote
(46,233 posts)Folks like Andrew Weissman, who is leaving government service anyway.
The fact that no one who knows what is in the Mueller report has publicly challenged the Barr summary makes me wonder whether the report is all that different than Barr's summary indicate.
Tommy_Carcetti
(44,587 posts)
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Lifelong Protester
(8,421 posts)Show us the report, we paid for it.
GetRidOfThem
(869 posts)If Mueller's report was not bad, it would have been released by now, instead of just Barr's summary of it.
Yes, I suspect Barr might be lying to us...
WyattKansas
(1,648 posts)Just like the investigation of Dubya's Iraq War, the truth was never going to see the light of day. That is why Obama agreed to not rock the boat with Bush Administration investigations. Could you imagine how the U.S. might handle imploding and the blow back from all the decisions (willful wrongs) made by the U.S. with other countries during that time? Or would it just be easier to manage hearsay that cannot be proven?
As for the Mueller report: What if very shocking things were uncovered about the current president and how he got there, which most suspect anyway, and the U.S. found itself with an illegitimate president that changed a lot of policies, pissed a lot of countries off, got to select TWO Supreme Court Justices (which ALL republicans are pleased about regardless), or correct the damage he has already done to the people in this country? How would or could you go back to rewind everything to remedy it without having a civil war? Or again, is it just easier to manage nasty hearsay that was never proven?
sfwriter
(3,032 posts)It's just the same thing again, but I think more will come to light. More will come to light on Dubya in twenty or thirty years.
unblock
(56,268 posts)if the full report really was as good for donnie as barr's summary, it's guaranteed that they'd be hammering to get it released as soon as possible. in fact, donnie would be accusing "liberal bureaucrats" of delaying its release or some such nonsense.
the fact that they're even talking about delaying it, maybe releasing only a somewhat larger summary, maybe not releasing it at all, is a giveaway that there's *something* embarrassing to donnie in it.
from a pure logic standpoint, we don't know exactly what embarrassing things are in there, but we can make some educated guesses that it at least strongly suggests he very likely committed crimes and/or has grounds for impeachment.
Cousin Dupree
(1,866 posts)PeeJ52
(1,588 posts)Would have taken less time to read...
DinahMoeHum
(23,691 posts)
Ilsa
(64,590 posts)designed to provide cover for trump while his minions receive or start their prison sentences. This is how they are beginning their campaign for 2020, by closing out Mueller.