Judge says Barr distorted Mueller findings

[Jhhnn]

But as a defendant you can't refuse a judges order and state I'm going to appeal your order to SCOTUS. Again, Barr just wants to stall this out until after the election

They can seek a stay on appeal.

 

[HomerJS]

They can seek a stay on appeal.

Aren't court trial verdicts the things that are appealed? In the middle of a case a defendent can refuse a judges order and say "I will not comply until SCOTUS rules on it?

I may be completely ignorant but never heard this in trials before.

 

[Jhhnn]

Aren't court trial verdicts the things that are appealed? In the middle of a case a defendent can refuse a judges order and say "I will not comply until SCOTUS rules on it?

I may be completely ignorant but never heard this in trials before.

Separation of powers issues transcend normal procedure.

 

[Printed Circuit Bro]

Then post the report.


If you read the link in the OP the judge thought it warranted an unredacted version of the report

So post it.

Post the report? The report that everyone has had access to since 4/18/2019?

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, I have a copy of the report. Is there something specific on a specific page you'd like to discuss?

Or are we just going to wave our pitch forks and torches and scream that Trump is the devil, sating our emotional irrationalities?

Doesn't really seem like we need to scream Trump is the devil or anything, the report itself lays out all the necessary elements of multiple felonies committed by Trump. Having read the report you presumably agree?

 

[hal2kilo]

Post the report? The report that everyone has had access to since 4/18/2019?

Judge just ruled that the Dems should get all of the Mueller investigation grand jury testimony.

Democrats should get Mueller evidence, judges rule

It's a notable win for House Democrats seeking to obtain more information from the Russia probe.

www.politico.com

You know, the stuff that wasn't in the Mueller report.

 

[outriding]

Post the report? The report that everyone has had access to since 4/18/2019?

A unredacted version of the report was never released.

 

[Printed Circuit Bro]

Doesn't really seem like we need to scream Trump is the devil or anything, the report itself lays out all the necessary elements of multiple felonies committed by Trump. Having read the report you presumably agree?

The report is not a determination of guilt. That's what the impeachment is for.

 

[Printed Circuit Bro]

Judge just ruled that the Dems should get all of the Mueller investigation grand jury testimony.

Democrats should get Mueller evidence, judges rule

It's a notable win for House Democrats seeking to obtain more information from the Russia probe.

www.politico.com

You know, the stuff that wasn't in the Mueller report.

That wasn't the question I was asked.

 

[Printed Circuit Bro]

A unredacted version of the report was never released.

...to the public anyway, and wasn't part of the question that I was asked unless you're trying to move the goal posts now.

 

[zinfamous]

...to the public anyway, and wasn't part of the question that I was asked unless you're trying to move the goal posts now.

This topic is largely about releasing the un-redacted report, to Congress at least.

I'm also curious as to why you think a federal judge is incorrect in assessing the dubious interpretation from William Barr, by comparing it to what you gathered from reading the same report that this same judge read.

It seems you value your assessment more than this guy's. I think that is why people are asking you to pinpoint the topics that you don't find concerning, with relation to William Barr's summary of the same report (which is already largely considered a duplicitous summary of the content)

 

[hal2kilo]

The report is not a determination of guilt. That's what the impeachment is for.

Not the way Barr distorted it, right? Definitely suckered you in.

 

[ch33zw1z]

And to think, just last year conservatives were demanding apologies after Barr's OP ED piece was released hours after the report was released. Who knew?

Where are they now?

 

[Printed Circuit Bro]

This topic is largely about releasing the un-redacted report, to Congress at least.

I'm also curious as to why you think a federal judge is incorrect in assessing the dubious interpretation from William Barr, by comparing it to what you gathered from reading the same report that this same judge read.

It seems you value your assessment more than this guy's. I think that is why people are asking you to pinpoint the topics that you don't find concerning, with relation to William Barr's summary of the same report (which is already largely considered a duplicitous summary of the content)

Wait, did I comment on the judge's assessment? I don't think so.

I said I don't care what Barr's statement said. I only care about what's in the report. That's all that matters: the report contents.

 

[Printed Circuit Bro]

Not the way Barr distorted it, right? Definitely suckered you in.

Is there a reading problem here? The Mueller Report is not a trial. It is not a determination of guilt, only a presentation of evidence.

 

[Jhhnn]

Wait, did I comment on the judge's assessment? I don't think so.

I said I don't care what Barr's statement said. I only care about what's in the report. That's all that matters: the report contents.

Yeh, Barr lying to protect Trump is obviously of no consequence. It's not like he's the AG or anybody important.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Wait, did I comment on the judge's assessment? I don't think so.

I said I don't care what Barr's statement said. I only care about what's in the report. That's all that matters: the report contents.

Kind of the entire point of this case is that the Judge is stating that because of Barr's dishonesty in what he said about the report he can not trust that Barr did not use his powers to redact the report to massage what was in it to be what he wanted to be in it. A few carful redactions here, and few there, and voila! the report does not say what it was intended to say.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Is there a reading problem here? The Mueller Report is not a trial. It is not a determination of guilt, only a presentation of evidence.

You should start with the person in your mirror because where the fuck are you getting that interpretation of their words? Where the fuck did they say any such thing?

FYI, trials are not infallible either, so hey, guess we can argue in the goddamn dumbest way possible endlessly instead of you simply answering people's question, which is, what exactly in the Mueller Report did you find to not be incredibly damning with regards to Turmp's actions? Be specific or STFU.

One last thing, I say that simply because apparently other people are willing to keep putting up with the never ending parade of quibbling dipshits, of which you are just the latest in a very long line. I don't. You've already shown you're not worth the time. I'd rather go fight over toilet paper at Wal-Mart, at least that's fit to wipe my ass with. Your posts? Not so much.

 

[Printed Circuit Bro]

Yeh, Barr lying to protect Trump is obviously of no consequence. It's not like he's the AG or anybody important.

Wait... you mean... people lie?!

Gasp.

Like I said, if Barr broke the law then he should be prosecuted according to the laws he broke.

 

[Printed Circuit Bro]

Kind of the entire point of this case is that the Judge is stating that because of Barr's dishonesty in what he said about the report he can not trust that Barr did not use his powers to redact the report to massage what was in it to be what he wanted to be in it. A few carful redactions here, and few there, and voila! the report does not say what it was intended to say.

Barr wasn't the only person responsible for redactions. There were a whole team of lawyers making those decisions. Remember, this was the largest investigation since the 9/11 report. There wasn't just 1 guy with white out and a type writer changing the report as he saw fit.

If they broke the law then they deserve to be prosecuted.

All I care about is what's in the report. Barr's memo is irrelevant because it's not part of the report. You can dog whistle all you want but the only thing that's important is the evidence submitted to Congress in the report.

It's a shame that Congress is so corrupt, also, that someone didn't think sharing potentially redacted information with them was worth the risk. Sounds like politicians being politicians, though. Who'd have thunk.

 

[Printed Circuit Bro]

You should start with the person in your mirror because where the fuck are you getting that interpretation of their words? Where the fuck did they say any such thing?

FYI, trials are not infallible either, so hey, guess we can argue in the goddamn dumbest way possible endlessly instead of you simply answering people's question, which is, what exactly in the Mueller Report did you find to not be incredibly damning with regards to Turmp's actions? Be specific or STFU.

One last thing, I say that simply because apparently other people are willing to keep putting up with the never ending parade of quibbling dipshits, of which you are just the latest in a very long line. I don't. You've already shown you're not worth the time. I'd rather go fight over toilet paper at Wal-Mart, at least that's fit to wipe my ass with. Your posts? Not so much.

I think there's definitely a reading problem here and it's not me. I'm not claiming anyone else's words, lol. What interpretation of whose words? These are my words.

Did I claim something in the report not to be damning? Please quote where I said that. In fact, please quote where I have made ANY evaluation of any specific piece of content in the Mueller Report. I'll wait.

You are incredibly rude. Your insults are uncalled for. You're becoming angry and lashing out. That says a lot about you. If you'd rather go fight over toilet paper at Wal-Mart instead of reply to my posts, why are you replying to my posts?

 

[Jhhnn]

Wait... you mean... people lie?!

Gasp.

Like I said, if Barr broke the law then he should be prosecuted according to the laws he broke.

So, you admit that Barr lied?

 

[Printed Circuit Bro]

So, you admit that Barr lied?

No putting words in my mouth for you! I make no evaluation of Barr's letter. What part of "irrelevant" to me is confusing?

 

[IronWing]

When putting on a sock puppet one should take care to remove the previous puppet otherwise it shows through the holes, spoiling the novelty.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Barr wasn't the only person responsible for redactions. There were a whole team of lawyers making those decisions. Remember, this was the largest investigation since the 9/11 report. There wasn't just 1 guy with white out and a type writer changing the report as he saw fit.

No, but he had the final word on the redactions. He could, at his discretion, add or remove redactions.
The point is that his dishonestly makes it so that the judge does not trust that he did so fairly. It is about integrity, and Barrs lack of it, rather than a legal issue.
The Judge is saying that the redacted report is only as trustworthy as the person that redacted it. Barr is not trustworthy, so neither is his redaction of it.

If they broke the law then they deserve to be prosecuted.

I agree, now who do you suppose we get to prosecute the head prosecutor?
Remember, this case is over whether or not Congress can have the evidence they would need to prosecute him.

You can dog whistle all you want but the only thing that's important is the evidence submitted to Congress in the report.

No, what is important is the actual evidence, not the evidence that might or might not have been tampered with. We don't know if the evidence was tampered with. That is what this case is trying to find out!

It's a shame that Congress is so corrupt, also, that someone didn't think sharing potentially redacted information with them was worth the risk. Sounds like politicians being politicians, though. Who'd have thunk.

So, you would think that if a suspected criminal refused to allow the police to search his car, even with a warrant, it is because the cops are the ones that can't be trusted?