Barr interview

[MplsHawk]

Mueller produced "summaries", which he'd intended to be publicly released in advance of the redacted report.

Barr pocketed Mueller's "summaries", and wrote his own 4-pager. The public has never seen what Mueller intended to be the "first look".

Yes, I understand that, but were the "summaries" prepared by Mueller different than the "executive summaries" that were part of the report and have now obviously been released to the public (with redactions)? What I am asking is if Mueller prepared separate summaries for a report which included summaries. I get that Barr released his 4 page summary before anything else, but I'm trying to figure out whether any Mueller summaries are still being withheld.

 

[Joes Place]

Yes, I understand that, but were the "summaries" prepared by Mueller different than the "executive summaries" that were part of the report and have now obviously been released to the public (with redactions)? What I am asking is if Mueller prepared separate summaries for a report which included summaries. I get that Barr released his 4 page summary before anything else, but I'm trying to figure out whether any Mueller summaries are still being withheld.

Mueller produced separate documents prior to full release of the report. Those have never been seen, and he apparently even quizzed Barr as to why they were not released.

 

[MplsHawk]

Mueller produced separate documents prior to full release of the report. Those have never been seen, and he apparently even quizzed Barr as to why they were not released.

Thank you. That is what I couldn't find with Google. All of the links I could find led me to believe that it was the Executive Summaries within the report that Mueller wanted released instead of Barr's summary.

 

[Hawk8595]

Why? Nobody pays attention, anyway. You will notice that the same statements are being made by the same people who made them in the past. What could I add to that?

I pay attention.

 

[Raglefant]

You are one of the less fanatical of the anti-Trumpsters on this board, so perhaps you can answer a question I've posed before without success.

Since you already have access to the full -- albeit redacted -- Mueller report, why is it important that you see a summary of it? As I understand it, the summaries were made with an eye toward not revealing any information that needed to be redacted, so anything in them MUST be in the public report.

What's the point? I can certainly see it if the only alternative was Barr's four-page memo, but that isn't the case.

Mueller could absolutely portray his conclusions in a summary that both reflected his knowledge of the redacted information while not including the specifically redacted information. Mueller clearly thought Barr misrepresented the report with his summary. That this fact isn't enough for anyone to want to see Mueller's summary is baffling if not predictable.

Listen... if you don't support the release of Mueller's summary, fine. But let's be honest about why. It is clearly because it is tougher on Trump than Barr's. If you believe Mueller is just an angry Democrat on a witch hunt and that Barr is a completely neutral civil servant, and therefore it is best for Mueller's to be hidden and Barr's should be the only one seen, then I think you're either dishonest or crazy... but I at least understand.

 

[Joes Place]

Thank you. That is what I couldn't find with Google. All of the links I could find led me to believe that it was the Executive Summaries within the report that Mueller wanted released instead of Barr's summary.

This is, allegedly, one of the starting points of frustration on the part of Mueller's team with Barr.

Each team member had created a publicly-disclosable summary of their sections; e.g. there was more than one. Not sure if that was just for each 'volume', or if it was more, but the implication was that it was more.

It is a very simple matter to bring Mueller in to Congress and ask him about it; and if they did convey those documents to Barr, why were those not included, prior to the report being made public? Remember, there's nothing in the law about a "redacted report" deliverable from the SC. His job is the report, and he and his team thought it was both appropriate and prudent to have those summaries provided directly from them.

Instead, we got a 4 page Barr "summary", which Mueller indicated in his letter did not grasp the scope and convey the basics of the report. That is political propaganda, pure and simple - something the AG and DOJ should not be engaging in.

 

[MplsHawk]

This is, allegedly, one of the starting points of frustration on the part of Mueller's team with Barr.

Each team member had created a publicly-disclosable summary of their sections; e.g. there was more than one. Not sure if that was just for each 'volume', or if it was more, but the implication was that it was more.

It is a very simple matter to bring Mueller in to Congress and ask him about it; and if they did convey those documents to Barr, why were those not included, prior to the report being made public? Remember, there's nothing in the law about a "redacted report" deliverable from the SC. His job is the report, and he and his team thought it was both appropriate and prudent to have those summaries provided directly from them.

Instead, we got a 4 page Barr "summary", which Mueller indicated in his letter did not grasp the scope and convey the basics of the report. That is political propaganda, pure and simple - something the AG and DOJ should not be engaging in.

Maybe it is. I'll form an opinion on that when I eventually hear Mueller's testimony. I haven't read the law, but they way it is discussed it sounds like it requires the SC provide the report to the AG. It is up to the AG how he proceeds with sharing that information. At least that is how it has been described.

AG's and the DOJ acting political isn't a new thing fwiw.

 

[ihhawk]

I don’t think Mueller ever testifies. The democrats have to sit back and ask themselves if they gain anything from it politically.

The republicans want him up there badly. The first question he will get is when did he realize that there was no collusion.

I think the democrats have more to lose from the testimony than the republicans do so I don’t think he testifies.

If the IG report highlights misconduct, it will be the end of Mueller in public

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I don’t think Mueller ever testifies. The democrats have to sit back and ask themselves if they gain anything from it politically.

The republicans want him up there badly. The first question he will get is when did he realize that there was no collusion.

I think the democrats have more to lose from the testimony than the republicans do so I don’t think he testifies.

If the IG report highlights misconduct, it will be the end of Mueller in public

LOL how is it possible for you to function when you're this deluded? If the GOP is so hot to hear from Mueller, perhaps you can explain why Trump is trying to prevent him from testifying by invoking executive privilege and perhaps you can explain why your GOP morans aren't demanding that Trump lift that privilege for Mueller. Whatcha got?

When Mueller testifies, hopefully the first question will be: Now that AG Barr has cleared it, did you find evidence of obstruction of justice sufficient to warrant the issuance of an indictment against the president?

Mueller: Yes

Committee: And did you find that the evidence was very likely sufficient to result in a guilty verdict?

Mueller: Yes

Here's your problem...and it comes from Barr himself.

“The role of the federal prosecutor and the purpose of a criminal investigation are well-defined. Federal prosecutors work with grand juries to collect evidence to determine whether a crime has been committed. Once a prosecutor has exhausted his investigation into the facts of a case, he or she faces a binary choice: either to commence or to decline prosecution. To commence prosecution, the prosecutor must apply the principles of federal prosecution and conclude both that the conduct at issue constitutes a federal offense and that the admissible evidence would probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a guilty verdict by an unbiased trier of fact. These principles govern the conduct of all prosecutions by the Department and are codified in the Justice Manual."

Mueller knows this as well as Barr. Mueller explicitly declined to make that binary choice because he - reasonably - concluded that him saying the president should be indicted was no different in it's effect on the presidency than if he actually indicted him. So what Barr just told you is that if Mueller didn't decline to prosecute...and he explicitly didn't on obstruction of justice...then Mueller must have come to the opposite conclusion but his understanding of the OLC's rules prevented him from saying so.

When Mueller testifies he can now say, thanks to Barr, that his conclusion is that "the conduct at issue constitutes a federal offense and that the admissible evidence would probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a guilty verdict by an unbiased trier of fact."

Thanks AG Barr...ya idiot.

 

[Lone Clone]

Mueller could absolutely portray his conclusions in a summary that both reflected his knowledge of the redacted information while not including the specifically redacted information. Mueller clearly thought Barr misrepresented the report with his summary. That this fact isn't enough for anyone to want to see Mueller's summary is baffling if not predictable.

Listen... if you don't support the release of Mueller's summary, fine. But let's be honest about why. It is clearly because it is tougher on Trump than Barr's. If you believe Mueller is just an angry Democrat on a witch hunt and that Barr is a completely neutral civil servant, and therefore it is best for Mueller's to be hidden and Barr's should be the only one seen, then I think you're either dishonest or crazy... but I at least understand.

I support releasing it. I support releasing everything that can be legally released. I've said from the beginning that Mueller should be allowed to do a complete job, no matter what it cost or how long it took.

I just don't understand why anybody would think a summary is important when they have access to the whole thing.

 

[Lone Clone]

LOL how is it possible for you to function when you're this deluded? If the GOP is so hot to hear from Mueller, perhaps you can explain why Trump is trying to prevent him from testifying by invoking executive privilege and perhaps you can explain why your GOP morans aren't demanding that Trump lift that privilege for Mueller. Whatcha got?

When Mueller testifies, hopefully the first question will be: Now that AG Barr has cleared it, did you find evidence of obstruction of justice sufficient to warrant the issuance of an indictment against the president?

Mueller: Yes

Committee: And did you find that the evidence was very likely sufficient to result in a guilty verdict?

Mueller: Yes

Here's your problem...and it comes from Barr himself.

“The role of the federal prosecutor and the purpose of a criminal investigation are well-defined. Federal prosecutors work with grand juries to collect evidence to determine whether a crime has been committed. Once a prosecutor has exhausted his investigation into the facts of a case, he or she faces a binary choice: either to commence or to decline prosecution. To commence prosecution, the prosecutor must apply the principles of federal prosecution and conclude both that the conduct at issue constitutes a federal offense and that the admissible evidence would probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a guilty verdict by an unbiased trier of fact. These principles govern the conduct of all prosecutions by the Department and are codified in the Justice Manual."

Mueller knows this as well as Barr. Mueller explicitly declined to make that binary choice because he - reasonably - concluded that him saying the president should be indicted was no different in it's effect on the presidency than if he actually indicted him. So what Barr just told you is that if Mueller didn't decline to prosecute...and he explicitly didn't on obstruction of justice...then Mueller must have come to the opposite conclusion but his understanding of the OLC's rules prevented him from saying so.

When Mueller testifies he can now say, thanks to Barr, that his conclusion is that "the conduct at issue constitutes a federal offense and that the admissible evidence would probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a guilty verdict by an unbiased trier of fact."

Thanks AG Barr...ya idiot.

The last I heard, Trump said it was up to Barr, and Barr said he had no problem with Mueller testifying. Mueller's people are working with Dems in the House to arrange the details.

 

[Lone Clone]

No bombshells, but mildly interesting. He directly responds to most questions. Doesn't get into many details. Says claim that he lied is "laughable." Said he isn't concerned about the House committee finding him in contempt. Says he was surprised that Mueller didn't make a decision on obstruction. Defends his (Barr's) actions and statements, doesn't walk back anything.

Said some of the stories/explanations he's gotten to questions about the Trump probe "didn't hang together." Seems he is particularly interested in the meeting at which Comey stayed behind to tell Trump about the pee story in the dossier, then it was leaked. (the story, not the pee).

It wasn't nasty but it wasn't a particularly soft interview. He was asked most of the questions one would expect to be asked.

Here's the full interview.

https://www.foxnews.com/

 

[Lone Clone]

You do realize your argument cuts both ways. Why not release them? If there's nothing in them that's new info...what's the point of keeping them..."redacted"?

Of course I realize it cuts both ways. I guess I should have said so. Sorry.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

Since you already have access to the full -- albeit redacted -- Mueller report, why is it important that you see a summary of it? As I understand it, the summaries were made with an eye toward not revealing any information that needed to be redacted, so anything in them MUST be in the public report.

What's the point? I can certainly see it if the only alternative was Barr's four-page memo, but that isn't the case.

Because more information is better than less.

Because the SCO specifically drafted these for the public and wanted them released.

Because I would anticipate that a comparison between the summaries and what Barr created / his shameful press conference will show that Barr is not an honest broker and acted in bad faith.

 

[Lone Clone]

Because more information is better than less.

Because the SCO specifically drafted these for the public and wanted them released.

Because I would anticipate that a comparison between the summaries and what Barr created / his shameful press conference will show that Barr is not an honest broker and acted in bad faith.

The point is not whether Barr's memo reflected the summaries prepared by Trump-hating members of Mueller's staff. The point is whether Barr's memo reflected the conclusions of the Mueller report.

Again, I have no problem with releasing them, and I would favor releasing them. I just don't understand the obsession, in view of the fact that the report itself is available. Particularly when it comes from people who have access to a version of the report that has very few redactions.

I think we both assume the staff summaries were written by people who think Mueller erred by not bringing criminal charges. I think we both assume that's why Trump critics want them made public.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

The point is whether Barr's memo reflected the conclusions of the Mueller report.

And we know it didn't. Mueller told him so in a letter that Barr lied about receiving - no amount of parsing changes that. So let's see what the prosecutors under Mueller prepared for release,

 

[Joes Place]

I don’t think Mueller ever testifies. The democrats have to sit back and ask themselves if they gain anything from it politically.

The republicans want him up there badly. The first question he will get is when did he realize that there was no collusion.

And his answer will be "There was collusion, that's why we investigated it for over a year. We simply could not formally tie it to the Russian government to meet the standards of criminal conspiracy"

 

[Joes Place]

The point is not whether Barr's memo reflected the summaries prepared by Trump-hating members of Mueller's staff.

Of course that's the point. And they're not "Trump hating members", they are investigators who wanted the proper message conveyed so that Barr and Trump didn't propagandize the information.

Mueller stated this HIMSELF in his March letter.

 

[Joes Place]

Barr said he had no problem with Mueller testifying. Mueller's people are working with Dems in the House to arrange the details.

Barr has no problem with him testifying, so long as he is able to strictly limit what he can say.

That is the "negotiating" going on. And it has nothing to do with "redactions".

 

[tarheelbybirth]

And they're not "Trump hating members", they are investigators who wanted the proper message conveyed so that Barr and Trump didn't propagandize the information.

Just LC laying down his next defensive stand for when things turn further south for his Trump-god.

But he doesn't defend Trump at every opportunity...just ask him.

 

[Joes Place]

Just LC laying down his next defensive stand for when things turn further south for his Trump-god.

But he doesn't defend Trump at every opportunity...just ask him.

LC forgets that when Mueller learned he had a "Trump hating member" who had sent text messages out (bashing on both Trump and Hillary), he fired him in short order.

 

[ft254]

This new barrage of obstruction evidence involving Gaettz, Dowd and the Orange Turd based on the release will shake loyalty in the Republican ranks. This is getting down to the nitty gritty, making it harder to support criminal activity when it works its way into congress. When they have to start having to cover their own asses, all bets are off.

 

[Joes Place]

This new BARRage of obstruction evidence involving Gaettz, Dowd and the Orange Turd based on the release will shake loyalty in the Republican ranks. This is getting down to the nitty gritty, making it harder to support criminal activity when it works its way into congress. When they have to start having to cover their own asses, all bets are off.

FIFY

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

The point is not whether Barr's memo reflected the summaries prepared by Trump-hating members of Mueller's staff.

Trump-hating members? Good grief LC. They are Mueller-approved summaries. And one of the points is that the AG of the US created a summary different than the Mueller approved summary because the AG decided to run interference for the President rather than act as the chief law enforcement officer of the US.

I just don't understand the obsession, in view of the fact that the report itself is available.

Sure you do. The full report is not available and the summaries were written and approved by people with access to both the unredacted report but also the entirety of the evidence available to the SCO - whether that information found its way into the report or not. The fact that Mueller had this written but Barr refuses to release it in lieu of Barr’s summary should tell you everything you want to know. But you have, for whatever reason, sold out to defend Donald Trump, of all people.

 

[ft254]

FIFY

Thanks. It probably warrants a new thread.

 

[BelemNole]

The point is not whether Barr's memo reflected the summaries prepared by Trump-hating members of Mueller's staff. The point is whether Barr's memo reflected the conclusions of the Mueller report.

Again, I have no problem with releasing them, and I would favor releasing them. I just don't understand the obsession, in view of the fact that the report itself is available. Particularly when it comes from people who have access to a version of the report that has very few redactions.

I think we both assume the staff summaries were written by people who think Mueller erred by not bringing criminal charges. I think we both assume that's why Trump critics want them made public.

Defend trump-hating. Presidential tweets don’t count.
God you’re a clown.

 

[txhawk I]

LOL how is it possible for you to function when you're this deluded? If the GOP is so hot to hear from Mueller, perhaps you can explain why Trump is trying to prevent him from testifying by invoking executive privilege and perhaps you can explain why your GOP morans aren't demanding that Trump lift that privilege for Mueller. Whatcha got?

When Mueller testifies, hopefully the first question will be: Now that AG Barr has cleared it, did you find evidence of obstruction of justice sufficient to warrant the issuance of an indictment against the president?

Mueller: Yes

Committee: And did you find that the evidence was very likely sufficient to result in a guilty verdict?

Mueller: Yes

Here's your problem...and it comes from Barr himself.

“The role of the federal prosecutor and the purpose of a criminal investigation are well-defined. Federal prosecutors work with grand juries to collect evidence to determine whether a crime has been committed. Once a prosecutor has exhausted his investigation into the facts of a case, he or she faces a binary choice: either to commence or to decline prosecution. To commence prosecution, the prosecutor must apply the principles of federal prosecution and conclude both that the conduct at issue constitutes a federal offense and that the admissible evidence would probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a guilty verdict by an unbiased trier of fact. These principles govern the conduct of all prosecutions by the Department and are codified in the Justice Manual."

Mueller knows this as well as Barr. Mueller explicitly declined to make that binary choice because he - reasonably - concluded that him saying the president should be indicted was no different in it's effect on the presidency than if he actually indicted him. So what Barr just told you is that if Mueller didn't decline to prosecute...and he explicitly didn't on obstruction of justice...then Mueller must have come to the opposite conclusion but his understanding of the OLC's rules prevented him from saying so.

When Mueller testifies he can now say, thanks to Barr, that his conclusion is that "the conduct at issue constitutes a federal offense and that the admissible evidence would probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a guilty verdict by an unbiased trier of fact."

Thanks AG Barr...ya idiot.

Good God,

If Mueller and his merry band of Hillary Clinton donors had the goods to indict they would have.

Go look up Andrew Weissman's sterling record. He's the person who put the Mueller team together. He was also at Hillary's victory party.

I hope they get Mueller in to answer questions. Love to know when he knew the Steele BS was fake. I'd also ask why he and his team waited until after the midterm elections to release his report when he was finished well before hand.

 

[Speedway1]

Barr needs to resign. If the best he can do is to not commit prosecutable perjury then he clearly isn't fit for the position.

Best AG we have had for many years. Sorry for you.

 

[BGHAWK]

I support releasing it. I support releasing everything that can be legally released. I've said from the beginning that Mueller should be allowed to do a complete job, no matter what it cost or how long it took.

I just don't understand why anybody would think a summary is important when they have access to the whole thing.

Then why was it necessary for Barr to produce a summary, when it's my understanding it wasn't his place to do it. Mueller did the report, his summaries should have been produced, if any. Barr wanted to put his spin on the report, pretty simple to understand. Barr has proven that he's trump's personal Cohn, and Mueller has not. That ought to be enough for everyone.

 

[BGHAWK]

Defend trump-hating. Presidential tweets don’t count.
God you’re a clown.

He just can't help himself and proves again why he has no credibility here.

 

[MplsHawk]

Then why was it necessary for Barr to produce a summary, when it's my understanding it wasn't his place to do it.

Why isn't it the Attorney General's place to determine how to inform Congress of the results of the confidential report that is to be provided to the AG by the Special Counsel?

 

[BGHAWK]

My understanding is the AG gets the report and sends it to Congress. I don't recall where it's his position to put his spin on it to serve the president, who is not his client.

 

[gohawks50]

My understanding is the AG gets the report and sends it to Congress. I don't recall where it's his position to put his spin on it to serve the president, who is not his client.

Not only did he put his spin on the report, he held a press conference to make sure his opinion received more press. The four page summary (principal conclusions) was the only public statement on the Mueller report for almost a month. The end result is most people never actually followed up and read the report. They believe the complete BS that Barr fed the American people. The whole process was a PR stunt to cast Trump in a more positive light.

 

[MplsHawk]

My understanding is the AG gets the report and sends it to Congress. I don't recall where it's his position to put his spin on it to serve the president, who is not his client.

From what I can find, that is not set out in the rules. The SC provides a confidential report to the AG. The AG determines how to inform Congress.

From what I can recall of the preparation of the Summary that Barr generated, members of Congress were screaming that they needed to know what is in the Report immediately. I think there was whining about it taking Barr the weekend to put something out. So those who don't think Barr shouldn't have generated a four page summary or held a press conference (both of which are within his purview), why shouldn't he?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

From what I can find, that is not set out in the rules. The SC provides a confidential report to the AG. The AG determines how to inform Congress.

From what I can recall of the preparation of the Summary that Barr generated, members of Congress were screaming that they needed to know what is in the Report immediately. I think there was whining about it taking Barr the weekend to put something out. So those who don't think Barr should have generated a four page summary or held a press conference (both of which are within his purview), why shouldn't he?

Because he already had summaries of each section done by the prosecutors in charge...you know...the guys who examined the evidence. So if Congress was "screaming that they needed to know" and THAT'S what drove Barr, he could have just released those summaries. Like...immediately.

Other than that...and his burning desire to provide cover for Trump...I can't think of a single reason for Barr to not do what he did.

 

[hawkedoff]

Mueller is not the attorney general no matter how much you all really want that to be true.

The truth is Barr was under no obligation to release anything from the report at all. That is the power of the position he holds.

 

[MplsHawk]

Because he already had summaries of each section done by the prosecutors in charge...you know...the guys who examined the evidence. So if Congress was "screaming that they needed to know" and THAT'S what drove Barr, he could have just released those summaries. Like...immediately.

Other than that...and his burning desire to provide cover for Trump...I can't think of a single reason for Barr to not do what he did.

Maybe he didn't like the Summaries. Maybe he wasn't certain that all of the information in the Summaries could be released. That is HIS job to ensure, not attorneys working for the SC.

 

[Lone Clone]

Thank you. That is what I couldn't find with Google. All of the links I could find led me to believe that it was the Executive Summaries within the report that Mueller wanted released instead of Barr's summary.

That also is what I understood was the case, but if Joe says two sets of executive summaries were prepared, I’ll take his word for it. I still don’t understand why seeing them is important to anybody at this point.

 

[Lone Clone]

Then why was it necessary for Barr to produce a summary, when it's my understanding it wasn't his place to do it. Mueller did the report, his summaries should have been produced, if any. Barr wanted to put his spin on the report, pretty simple to understand. Barr has proven that he's trump's personal Cohn, and Mueller has not. That ought to be enough for everyone.

The law required Barr to prepare a report for Congress of what the Mueller report said. That is ALL the law required him to do.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Maybe he didn't like the Summaries. Maybe he wasn't certain that all of the information in the Summaries could be released. That is HIS job to ensure, not attorneys working for the SC.

LOL...yeah, sure...that's it. That explains why he trotted a copy of the report over to Trump's lawyers before he let Congress see it. He needed advice on what he could release.