Barr interview

[MplsHawk]

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.

I'm not 100% certain that there are two sets of executive summaries prepared by the SC attorneys. I can't find direct statement to that effect anywhere. It wouldn't surprise me if the summaries that were being referred to by Mueller are the same Executive Summaries found in the reports which have now obviously been released. Those Executive Summaries required redacting, which would explain why Barr felt the need to make his own short summary of conclusions in the few days following completion of the Report.

 

[MplsHawk]

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.

I don't doubt that you believe that.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

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.

Because Barr saw them. Because Barr buried them. Because Barr then proclaimed things that the prosecutors who actually did the investigating disputed. So lets see what THEY said that Barr doesn't want us to see.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I don't doubt that you believe that.

Believe what? That he gave the report to Trump's lawyer before he released it to Congress? Please dispute that. Please.

 

[Joes Place]

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.

All you have to do is read Mueller's March letter about it.

Shit, you can't even read THAT

 

[MplsHawk]

Believe what? That he gave the report to Trump's lawyer before he released it to Congress? Please dispute that. Please.

Believe what you said, including "He needed advice on what he could release."

 

[MplsHawk]

All you have to do is read Mueller's March letter about it.

Shit, you can't even read THAT

Okay, I just found and read that letter for the first time. In my opinion, the Mueller letter makes it fairly clear (at least more likely than not) that the summaries that he referred to and that you want released are the Executive Summaries contained within the volumes of the SC Report--that obviously now have been released. Mueller wrote:

"I previously sent you a letter dated March 25, 2019, that enclosed the introduction and executive summary for each volume of the Special Counsel's report marked with redactions to remove any information that potentially could be protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure that concerned declination decisions; or that related to a charged case."
...
As we stated in our meeting of March 5 and reiterated to the Department early in the afternoon of March 24, the introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report accurately summarize this Office's work and conclusions. The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25.


I don't think it likely that Mueller's team created two different sets of executive summaries. People can be mad about Barr creating his own summary, but those in this thread asserting that Mueller's summaries haven't been released--I think it is likely that you are mistaken. If I'm wrong, I'll gladly admit it if you demonstrate how I am wrong.

 

[Lone Clone]

Because Barr saw them. Because Barr buried them. Because Barr then proclaimed things that the prosecutors who actually did the investigating disputed. So lets see what THEY said that Barr doesn't want us to see.

SO EFFING WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!?

 

[BGHAWK]

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.[/QUO

That's what I have been led to believe. Then it was up to congress to release anything appropriate to the public. Barr went too far in giving his spin which evidently Mueller didn't agree totally with.

 

[Lone Clone]

All you have to do is read Mueller's March letter about it.

Shit, you can't even read THAT

I've read that, and it's entirely irrelevant to my question. Which you would understand if you wanted to.

 

[Lone Clone]

So what? JFC, you people are dense.

We KNEW, given the makeup of Mueller's crew, that some of the members would want to recommend the death penalty for Trump. That was a no-brainer.

The idea that Barr was trying to give Trump a couple of weeks to mislead the public about the content of the report is ludicrous, especially in light of the fact that -- as we now know without doubt -- the MSM and trolls like Joe and Tar had been trying to mislead the public about it for two years.

Assuming Joe is correct, and the summaries released are not the summaries that weren't released, they probably show that some members of his posse thought charges should have been brought against Trump and/or his gang. We already know that. What matters is that we know what the boss -- Mueller -- decided.

 

[BGHAWK]

Okay, I just found and read that letter for the first time. In my opinion, the Mueller letter makes it fairly clear (at least more likely than not) that the summaries that he referred to and that you want released are the Executive Summaries contained within the volumes of the SC Report--that obviously now have been released. Mueller wrote:

"I previously sent you a letter dated March 25, 2019, that enclosed the introduction and executive summary for each volume of the Special Counsel's report marked with redactions to remove any information that potentially could be protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure that concerned declination decisions; or that related to a charged case."
...
As we stated in our meeting of March 5 and reiterated to the Department early in the afternoon of March 24, the introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report accurately summarize this Office's work and conclusions. The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25.


I don't think it likely that Mueller's team created two different sets of executive summaries. People can be mad about Barr creating his own summary, but those in this thread asserting that Mueller's summaries haven't been released--I think it is likely that you are mistaken. If I'm wrong, I'll gladly admit it if you demonstrate how I am wrong.

Mueller's summaries were released to Barr and he has NOT released them to the public, pretty simple. Harry Litman's article on April 5th in the Washington Post says they have not been released as of that time.

 

[Lone Clone]

Mueller's summaries were relaeased to Barr and he has NOT released them to the public, pretty simple.

So WHAT? Are they going to show that Mueller lied about what his investigation produced? Because if not, then they are irrelevant.

 

[BGHAWK]

So WHAT? Are they going to show that Mueller lied about what his investigation produced? Because if not, then they are irrelevant.

I don't know, what is Barr and trump hiding? Why not just release them? Then you and your republican trump enablers can show everyone on the left how wrong we were.

 

[MplsHawk]

Mueller's summaries were relaeased to Barr and he has NOT released them to the public, pretty simple.

I think that is wrong. As the text of Mueller's letter pretty clearly shows, it is very likely that the summaries (with redactions by Mueller's team) that Mueller wanted Barr to release are the Executive Summaries included within the SC Report. The SC Report has been released (with redactions), so the Summaries contained within the SC Report have been released. If I'm wrong, please show me how (e.g., with a link proving it).

 

[wilson reborn]

All you have to do is read Mueller's March letter about it.

Shit, you can't even read THAT

Haven’t read this whole thread, but the point at which Barr very clearly appeared to perjure himself was was when he responded to a Congressional question saying he had no indication Mueller had concerns about his four page summary. He had Mueller’s March 27 letter at that point. That makes his testimony a lie.

At this point I’m not sure Mueller testimony would have much political significance, but I’d like to hear what he has to say. Particularly on his phone call with Barr after the March 27 letter.

 

[Lone Clone]

I don't know, what is Barr and trump hiding? Why not just release them? Then you and your republican trump enablers can show everyone on the left how wrong we were.

If I had to bet the farm right this minute, I would bet MplsHawk is right, Joe is wrong, and they have been released. But I'm basing that primarily on what Ted Cruz and Barr said in the hearing, and they may be lying (or I may have misinterpreted what they were saying).

 

[Lone Clone]

Haven’t read this whole thread, but the point at which Barr very clearly appeared to perjure himself was was when he responded to a Congressional question saying he had no indication Mueller had concerns about his four page summary. He had Mueller’s March 27 letter at that point. That makes his testimony a lie.

At this point I’m not sure Mueller testimony would have much political significance, but I’d like to hear what he has to say. Particularly on his phone call with Barr after the March 27 letter.

He didn't say that.

 

[MplsHawk]

If I had to bet the farm right this minute, I would bet MplsHawk is right, Joe is wrong, and they have been released. But I'm basing that primarily on what Ted Cruz and Barr said in the hearing, and they may be lying (or I may have misinterpreted what they were saying).

I'd bet the farm they are the same summaries too. Heck, I'd bet your farm too. Think about it. The Executive Summaries from within the two volumes of the SC Report required redaction. Mueller's letter to Barr states that the Executive Summaries he provided to Barr were marked with redactions. Two thoughts: (1) If they aren't the same, why would he name both the same thing ("Executive Summary")? (2) More importantly, if producing a DIFFERENT Executive Summary for each volume of the Report than the ones contained within the Report, with the intention that these DIFFERENT Executive Summaries be released to the public and Congress, why would they include information that had to be redacted by the SC's team before being ready to release? They wouldn't. The hypothetical DIFFERENT Executive Summaries would be written such that they didn't require redaction.

 

[hawkedoff]

So what? JFC, you people are dense.

We KNEW, given the makeup of Mueller's crew, that some of the members would want to recommend the death penalty for Trump. That was a no-brainer.

The idea that Barr was trying to give Trump a couple of weeks to mislead the public about the content of the report is ludicrous, especially in light of the fact that -- as we now know without doubt -- the MSM and trolls like Joe and Tar had been trying to mislead the public about it for two years.

Assuming Joe is correct, and the summaries released are not the summaries that weren't released, they probably show that some members of his posse thought charges should have been brought against Trump and/or his gang. We already know that. What matters is that we know what the boss -- Mueller -- decided.

They may be dense but the reason they aren't getting what is a fairly easy thing to see and that you summarized is political motivation. That is it.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

SO EFFING WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!?

LOL...regular as clockwork.

 

[wilson reborn]

He didn't say that.

Read Barr response to Crist and Van Hollen. At the best extremely misleading, more likely perjury. We need to hear from Mueller.

 

[Lone Clone]

Read Barr response to Crist and Van Hollen. At the best extremely misleading, more likely perjury. We need to hear from Mueller.

As I have said before, it was lawyerly weasel talk. He knew some people on the Mueller team didn't think he included enough anti-Trump information. He said as much in his second sentence of his response, which none of you libs ever mention. But his answer to the specific question was not "a lie."

What he should have said -- although it wouldn't have satisfied you, anyway -- is something like, "I know that some of those people thought I should have included more, but I don't know which people are making the complaint you cited."

 

[Lone Clone]

LOL...regular as clockwork.

And Tar's response is predictable: Personal attack in lieu of anything substantive. You never let down the board, Tar.

 

[wilson reborn]

As I have said before, it was lawyerly weasel talk.

Ok, at least you concede Barr is a weasel.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

He didn't say that.

Mueller letter to Barr:

"The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions."

Barr testimony to Congress (after receiving the letter)

CRIST: Reports have emerged recently, General, that members of the special counsel’s team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24th letter . . . that it does not adequately or accurately necessarily portray the report’s findings. Do you know what they’re referencing with that?

BARR: No, I don’t.

 

[Lone Clone]

Mueller letter to Barr:

"The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions."

Barr testimony to Congress (after receiving the letter)

CRIST: Reports have emerged recently, General, that members of the special counsel’s team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24th letter . . . that it does not adequately or accurately necessarily portray the report’s findings. Do you know what they’re referencing with that?

BARR: No, I don’t.

Which is technically, absolutely true. As you have illustrated with your quotations. Thank you. Although I do not thank you for leaving out Barr's next remark.

Here, since you apparently didn't have access to it, is the entire exchange:

Crist, April 9: Reports have emerged recently … that members of the special counsel’s team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24th letter, that it does not adequately or accurately, necessarily, portray the report’s findings. Do you know what they’re referencing with that?

Barr: No, I don’t. I think, I think, I suspect that they probably wanted, you know, more put out. But in my view, I was not interested in putting out summaries or trying to summarize, because I think any summary regardless of who prepares it not only runs the risk of, you know, being under-inclusive or over-inclusive but also, you know, would trigger a lot of discussion and analysis that really should await everything coming out at once.

 

[hawkedoff]

Just remember Barr is smarter than the people trying to parse his words on here lc.

They so desperately want their narrative to be true

 

[Lone Clone]

Just remember Barr is smarter than the people trying to parse his words on here lc.

They so desperately want their narrative to be true

Don't tell me. Tell the posters who think they're smarter than he and Mueller combined.

 

[wilson reborn]

Mueller letter to Barr:

"The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions."

Barr testimony to Congress (after receiving the letter)

CRIST: Reports have emerged recently, General, that members of the special counsel’s team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24th letter . . . that it does not adequately or accurately necessarily portray the report’s findings. Do you know what they’re referencing with that?

BARR: No, I don’t.

Thanks. Focus on the use of the word substance in Mueller’s second letter. Barr may be immoral, but he is arguably shrewd. We need to hear from Mueller about that phone call.

 

[MplsHawk]

Which is technically, absolutely true. As you have illustrated with your quotations. Thank you. Although I do not thank you for leaving out Barr's next remark.

Here, since you apparently didn't have access to it, is the entire exchange:

Crist, April 9: Reports have emerged recently … that members of the special counsel’s team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24th letter, that it does not adequately or accurately, necessarily, portray the report’s findings. Do you know what they’re referencing with that?

Barr: No, I don’t. I think, I think, I suspect that they probably wanted, you know, more put out. But in my view, I was not interested in putting out summaries or trying to summarize, because I think any summary regardless of who prepares it not only runs the risk of, you know, being under-inclusive or over-inclusive but also, you know, would trigger a lot of discussion and analysis that really should await everything coming out at once.

Damn, quoting the first three words of a response as evidence of perjury and leaving off the next several sentences that provide the context of the first three words--that is weak. Barr may well have still been misleading with that statement "I suspect that they probably wanted...more put out" instead of saying that they have indicated or stated that they wanted more put out, but it is weak to stop a quote three words into Barr's response.

 

[gohawks50]

I suspect if Mueller was going to verify that Barr's conclusions as well as his testimony were consistent with Mueller's findings and opinions, he would have already been scheduled to testify. I know Barr has said he has no problem with Mueller testifying so what is the hold up? Isn't Barr still his boss?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

And Tar's response is predictable: Personal attack in lieu of anything substantive. You never let down the board, Tar.

How exactly is pointing out your reliability a personal attack?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

"I suspect that they probably wanted...more put out"

It's not included because it's completely immaterial. Not a damn word after the first three addresses what Mueller conveyed. Mueller didn't say a word about wanting "more put out". He specifically criticized the way Barr characterized the report. Barr was trying to divert attention from that by going off on his "I think..." tangent.

Mueller also "enclosed materials" with his letter that he requested be released immediately to alleviate the confusion that Barr sowed with his summary. Where are those "enclosed materials"? What do they say?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I suspect if Mueller was going to verify that Barr's conclusions as well as his testimony were consistent with Mueller's findings and opinions, he would have already been scheduled to testify. I know Barr has said he has no problem with Mueller testifying so what is the hold up? Isn't Barr still his boss?

Trump's claim of executive privilege is muddying the waters. They're negotiating on what limits will be put on Mueller's testimony.

 

[MplsHawk]

It's not included because it's completely immaterial. Not a damn word after the first three addresses what Mueller conveyed. Mueller didn't say a word about wanting "more put out". He specifically criticized the way Barr characterized the report. Barr was trying to divert attention from that by going off on his "I think..." tangent.

Mueller also "enclosed materials" with his letter that he requested be released immediately to alleviate the confusion that Barr sowed with his summary. Where are those "enclosed materials"? What do they say?

Completely immaterial? That is a ridiculous statement to make. You don't take the first three words and leave out the next 70ish words if you are being intellectually honest. Further, Mueller stated "The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions." Fully capturing the context, nature, and substance ... sounds like wanting "more put out" to me.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Completely immaterial? That is a ridiculous statement to make. You don't take the first three words and leave out the next 70ish words if you are being intellectually honest. Further, Mueller stated "The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions." Fully capturing the context, nature, and substance ... sounds like wanting "more put out" to me.

No...it sounds like the question Barr was asked.

But, what the hell, let's include the rest...why don't you next try to justify the "I think, I think, I suspect..." weaseling answer. He had, in hand, a letter from Mueller stating specifically that the summary was bad and had sown confusion. Mueller included clarifying information that he asked be released immediately to address it. For your next trick, explain Barr's obfuscation and tell us what happened to Mueller's enclosures.

How about this...the WH explicitly releases Mueller to speak freely to Congress. Quit punting to Barr whose loyalties are obvious and just say he's free to answer any and all questions. Or tweet it. Trust Mueller to know what he can and can't reveal publicly. Whatcha think?

 

[MplsHawk]

Well, at least you are moving away from your initial unsupportable position. I suspect that the materials attached to Mueller's letter of March 27th were again just copies of the Introductions and Executive Summaries from the SC Report, but I don't know for certain. There is no indication that they are more than that.

I'm not here to assert that Barr didn't use weasel wording, so nice try, but no. As for your last paragraph, after careful consideration I've decided I'll allow it. You are a tough negotiator tar.

 

[ditchdigger59]

Barr has proven himself to be an amateur. He was a failure in his tenure in the Bush administration, writing ridiculous decisions. He should not have written the summary of the Mueller report, or performed the preemptive press conference preceding the release of the report.

Since then, he has prevented interviews or release of any information. This is not the behavior or mannerism of a professional civil servant or attorney representing the people of the United States. This is the behavior of a representor consorting with a felon.

Why don't you ask yourself why he isn't releasing this information? He isn't the president's attorney. He shouldn't be choosing sides. There is something terribly wrong here.

like Holder?

 

[Joes Place]

I'd bet the farm they are the same summaries too.

Whether they are, or aren't, the question is still "why were they not released immediately?", and why did Barr misrepresent the report and then wait a full month-and-a-half to release them?

Mueller expressed his concern that the info would be misrepresented, which it was.