BaptistLife.Com Forums.

The Mueller Report has not been released. What we have is a four page "summary" of the reports contents by the attorney general who has a very well stated position and record of bias when it comes to issues related to the presidency and is completely on the record regarding his very strong personal and professional bias when it comes to this particular investigation and its potential outcome. This same attorney general, along with most of his Republican colleagues, did not come anywhere close to holding this same view of the lack of legal authority to hold the president accountable, including who could indict him, when Bill Clinton was in the White House. So on top of everything else, including his willingness to accept a position of power at the invitation of the most corrupt president in history, Attorney General Barr's words are propaganda, not fact. The way they've handled this, unconstitutionally I might add, is just a way to get out ahead of the findings of the investigation.

If you actually read Barr's four page missive, it does not in any way state unequivocally that there was "no collusion," and it does not exonerate the President on any possible charge. It states that the report found that the special counsel did not have enough evidence to meet the higher standards for indictment required of a special counsel investigation . It does not state that there was "no collusion," nor does it state that there was no obstruction of justice. We already knew well in advance that the attorney general, who was put in place deliberately because of his long held views on the ability of the courts to indict a sitting president, This was the moment for which Jeff Sessions was thrown under the bus and for which Barr was hired. Trump, as usual, ignored the facts and headed out to rally the base.

Constitutionally, Congress will have to see the full, unredacted report. They will have to decide if the evidence which does exist for both collusion and obstruction of justice meets their standard for "high crimes and misdemeanors." They will have to have the courage to counter the propaganda being put out by Trump and state that he is lying about it. They already have more that is publicly known than the GOP had when they went after Clinton. So when that is all made public, yes, we will see. Until then, he is still incompetent, inept and unfit for office, a pathological liar and a sexual abuser of women.

My old friend reverts to type by presuming to know my state of mind.

I agree that there is, at the least, the appearance of conflict of interest if the attorney general and justice department "have the final say" about redacting the grand jury testimony. On the other hand, a legal decision does have to be made about it. I prefer that it be done by a judge. The Democratic members of Congress also have a certain amount of self-interest (at the least their desire to take back the White House). Some legal pundits I read brought up the issue of the Speaker of the House having already committed to not seeking impeachment as one of the reasons that would make not redacting the grand jury testimony questionable.

As an appointee of Trump, Barr must either recuse himself or forever taint the process. The appointment of one of his relatives as a White House counsel, makes Barr look like "a hired gun."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/03/us/p ... eport.html

Go figure.

NYT you say? Yawn...

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/201 ... story.html

To borrow William's original title for this thread, the chirping is getting loud in Washington between the justice department and the white house. Quite a stone wall being built there. Every day that goes by without the full report being released raises more questions, at least with intelligent, thinking people, about what it might contain and more doubt about the brief that the attorney general put out on it so quickly after it was released.

They're following Nixon's watergate script almost word for word.

I think we should just take Trump at his word, "The report exonerates me." Therefore, to hedge on its release is to call the POTUS a liar.

ED. Speaking of the redactions in the upcoming Mueller report . When has it become incumbent for upon the Government to release the total content of the Muller Secret Hearings. Is there no one else here who recalls when the government with a Democrat President wisely determined it was the best policy to "redact or censor" all correspondence between US Military personnel In the Far East and Europe and their families and all other civilians, to prevent this nations enemies from knowing of America and our allies assignments regarding Troop Movements and distribution of weapons and supplies. If indeed there existed legitimate reason for a Secret inquiry overseen by a special prosecuted, how reasonable is for the whole world to know every detail of the probe?

If we want a redaction for national security, shouldn't that go to the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the military and the CIA, not a new appointee to justice?