Posted on 04/30/2019 6:15:56 PM PDT by janetjanet998
Washington (CNN)Special counsel Robert Mueller expressed concerns in a letter to Attorney General William Barr that Barr's four-page letter to Congress summarizing the "principal conclusions" of Mueller's findings didn't fully capture his 448-page report, according to a source with knowledge of Mueller's letter. Later, Barr and Mueller spoke by phone and while Mueller didn't think Barr's letter was inaccurate, the special counsel believed his report was more nuanced on the obstruction of justice issue, according to Justice Department officials. Mueller was frustrated by media coverage, and wanted more of the report to come out, those officials told CNN.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Barr stated that he and Mueller disagreed about obstruction law when he introduced the four page letter.
Barr said he offered Mueller the chance to read the four-page summary before it was released, and Mueller turned him down.
BS. If he expressed misgivings why wouldn’t he have taken the opportunity Barr offered him to review his summary?
Finally, Mueller is frustrated!
Oh, this is going to hurt a bit Bob.
Trump sized dress shoe sent flying to your exposed a$$!
Wait..let me grab some popcorn first!
Barr’s four-page letter to Congress summarizing the “principal conclusions” of Mueller’s findings didn’t fully capture his 448-page report
DUH - you mean if I do not read War and Peace but rather the Readers Digest version it does not “fully capture” the full book? Shocked.
Why get into an editing battle. Barr lied about the main findings of the report. Pretty simple.
There are 2 reasons why the MSM released this story today. Nothing is done without coordination with the Dems, (House in this case). This is the money quote that they want the public to read;
Barr told lawmakers in congressional testimony on April 10 — weeks after Mueller’s letter — that he didn’t know if Mueller supported his conclusions.
Maryland Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen asked Barr during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, “Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion.”
“I don’t know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion,” Barr responded.
1. The Nadler crowd need to allege that AG Barr lied to congress, thus must recuse from anything Mueller related.
2. to justify the need for staff attorneys to question AG Barr because he lied to congress and should be treated as a, (potentially hostile), fact witness, not an appointed cabinet member.
My take on this story.
An anonymous source with “knowledge”. Right. Just another smear by the left.
Bill Mitchell, a staunch supporter of President Trump, tweeted this evening that the Washington Post’s headline is not what’s in the actual content of the story.
I haven’t read any of the media articles, which are clearly being spun ahead of Barr’s appearance before the Democrat’s committee tomorrow, but Bill Mitchell said that the actual article says that Mueller agreed with how Barr summarized his report but he didn’t like the way the media was spinning it.
In other words, the media is running more lying spin, which is probably one of the reasons Democrats aren’t demanding that Mueller appear before them first.
Nuance? GMAFB!
Wow, really surprises me that some here actually believe CNN’s “...source with knowledge of Mueller’s letter” as proof Mueller said this.
Sorry, but I do NOT trust CNN’s Fake News!
FAKE NEWS
Give the Special Counsel staff a week to pack up the office, turn in government equipment and records, cut the final paychecks and CLOSE UP SHOP. This isn’t supposed to be a permanent operation or office.
The article clearly states that when Barr asked Mueller if there was anything inaccurate in his (Barr’s) synopsis, Mueller said no, he just didn’t like the way the media was characterizing it.
No really, but I would guess Andrew Weissman .... a well known unrespected bloodsucking bottom feeding low life leftist lawyer.
Barr has publicly stated that if Mulehead wants to find a microphone and let the world know what he thinks about his own report he can go for it.
But this whiny Deep State criminal has no intention of risking his arse with public statements.
"potentially obstructive." IOW, depends on what Trump was thinking.
Drudge Who? I recall a couple of centuries ago, or maybe it was a couple of decades ago, there was such a website. It even introduced me to Free Republic. You mean it's still around? There are far better websites for getting real news now.
is he saying that any obstruction was minor? and more a case of Trump fighting back politically with his low-information accusers in the media?
or is he saying that his own judgement was clouded by his own past record of finding scurrilous excuses to persecute innocents?
or, did he say nothing and this is all wishful fluff fed to a reporter by a) Comey b) Brennen
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.