EE PatronMar 25th 2019, 10:23:17
Originally posted by wapttn:
What Barr put out today is not Mueller's report. Generally speaking, you don't leave the summary of a criminal investigation up to someone appointed by the investigation's primary target. It may or may not be accurate and unfortunately, we have no way of knowing. At this point, I don't think it's reasonable to ask the American public to trust someone based on rank or title. The public needs to see evidence.
Ted Cruz was on CNN this morning before the report was released and when asked if he wanted it released, he shook his head, stuttered, and said "absolutely". For those who study body language, shaking your head 'no' while saying "yes" is a giveaway that you're being dishonest. This implies that Cruz knows or assumes bad news for Trump or himself within the Mueller report.
Trump did a brief news conference in response to Barr's summary and his message hasn't changed. Still "No Collusion", "No Obstruction", "Look at the other side", but did add "complete exoneration". Nothing in his body language or message suggested that he felt exonerated.. no sense of relief, relaxation, or vindication. It's like he knows that this is somehow a hollow victory.
Trump's lawyers have been asked whether they wanted the full report released because it would theoretically exonerate Trump further than Barr's summary has. They danced around that pretty hard and ultimately avoided the question.
Barr's summary states that the Trump campaign did not conspire or coordinate with the IRA. I don't think anyone had made that assumption. The general assumption was that Russian government operatives secured assurances from Trump campaign associates regarding sanctions, in exchange for damaging information on Hillary Clinton released via Wikileaks. I tried to find something in the summary which denies this and I can't (please let me know if I missed it).
My understanding of the summary is that Mueller did not find sufficient evidence that Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia. Considering that Mueller wasn't able to interview the primary target of his investigation, there's a chance that he didn't have access to all the evidence he needed. Thankfully, there was a parallel investigation into obstruction of justice. Unfortunately, Mueller only laid out the facts and did not make a determination on whether or not to prosecute. This seems to be related to conduct which would be obstruction, would the individual not also be the president. So that decision was left up to the AG, who was appointed by the primary target of this investigation directly relating to the views he expressed on a President's inability to obstruct justice. And unsurprisingly, Barr was happy to deliver that verdict, without discussing any of the underlying evidence.
And here' the kicker. In the summary, Barr suggests that you can't prove obstruction without first proving the crime which is being obstructed. Apparently, obstruction of justice doesn't count if you're A. The President, and B. Are successful in your ability to obstruct the investigation.
Ted Cruz was on CNN this morning before the report was released and when asked if he wanted it released, he shook his head, stuttered, and said "absolutely". For those who study body language, shaking your head 'no' while saying "yes" is a giveaway that you're being dishonest. This implies that Cruz knows or assumes bad news for Trump or himself within the Mueller report.
Trump did a brief news conference in response to Barr's summary and his message hasn't changed. Still "No Collusion", "No Obstruction", "Look at the other side", but did add "complete exoneration". Nothing in his body language or message suggested that he felt exonerated.. no sense of relief, relaxation, or vindication. It's like he knows that this is somehow a hollow victory.
Trump's lawyers have been asked whether they wanted the full report released because it would theoretically exonerate Trump further than Barr's summary has. They danced around that pretty hard and ultimately avoided the question.
Barr's summary states that the Trump campaign did not conspire or coordinate with the IRA. I don't think anyone had made that assumption. The general assumption was that Russian government operatives secured assurances from Trump campaign associates regarding sanctions, in exchange for damaging information on Hillary Clinton released via Wikileaks. I tried to find something in the summary which denies this and I can't (please let me know if I missed it).
My understanding of the summary is that Mueller did not find sufficient evidence that Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia. Considering that Mueller wasn't able to interview the primary target of his investigation, there's a chance that he didn't have access to all the evidence he needed. Thankfully, there was a parallel investigation into obstruction of justice. Unfortunately, Mueller only laid out the facts and did not make a determination on whether or not to prosecute. This seems to be related to conduct which would be obstruction, would the individual not also be the president. So that decision was left up to the AG, who was appointed by the primary target of this investigation directly relating to the views he expressed on a President's inability to obstruct justice. And unsurprisingly, Barr was happy to deliver that verdict, without discussing any of the underlying evidence.
And here' the kicker. In the summary, Barr suggests that you can't prove obstruction without first proving the crime which is being obstructed. Apparently, obstruction of justice doesn't count if you're A. The President, and B. Are successful in your ability to obstruct the investigation.