Blade_Runner wrote:
Thanks.
Best post that rather than link it. In my experience on forums like this, many people will skip over links. It's in-your-face stuff that is most effective.
About That Letter That Mueller Wrote To Barr...
Another deep state "leak" has hit the tape, and as usual it has gone to the WaPo and NYT almost at the exact same time... but this it's even more laughable than usual.
In what the WaPo breathlessly reports late on Tuesday was a rebuke and "complaint" to Attorney General William Barr, special counsel Robert Mueller sent a letter to the AG in late March, just days after Barr sent out his summary to Congress, in which Mueller stated that Barr's 4-page summary to Congress on the sweeping Russia investigation failed to "fully capture the context, nature, and substance" of Mueller’s work and conclusions, citing a copy of the letter it had obtained using its trusted deep intel sources.
This is what Mueller said to Barr, according to the leaked NSA intercept:
"There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations."
And if one reads just that, it certainly does not look good for Attorney General Barr, especially just one day before his first official Congressional hearing on the topic of the Mueller report: so bad that even the absolute lunatic fringe of conspiracygate - which had mercifully shut up for the past month with its daily predictions that this member of the Trump clan is going to jail, or that website will be shut down - has roared back into life with the sage assessment that "this is bad."
Pouring more fuel on the fire, the always pithy Axios adds that "this revelation about Mueller's dissatisfaction with the characterization of his report will likely escalate the growing rift over Barr's handling of the special counsel's investigation. House Democrats, who have expressed distrust in the attorney general, are set to vote on Wednesday to allow House Judiciary Committee lawyers to question Barr at Thursday's hearing."
Or maybe not, and perhaps the WaPo/NYT report is not "so bad" if one actually reads it, because once the breathless WaPo finally does come up for air, we get to paragraph 13 - a point by which most readers have turned out - to read the following real punchline in the WaPo report:
When Barr pressed Mueller on whether he thought Barr’s memo to Congress was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not...
So, Mueller felt there was confusion... but he did not think the memo was inaccurate. Wait, what's going on here and how is this even a story? Well, if we read the rest of the above sentence, we find the true object of Mueller's "complaint":
Mueller felt that the media coverage of it was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said.
Which means that, as the WaPo itself reports, what Mueller was really angry with was the coverage of his report by media such as... the WaPo and the NYT?? The irony, it burns.
But wait, because if one reads even further - and yes, we know most Russiagaters have troubles getting beyond sentence one so they are excused - we find that throughout a subsequent 15 minutes telephone conversation between the special counsel and the attorney general, Mueller’s main worry was "that the public was not getting an accurate understanding of the obstruction investigation."
This goes back to what Mueller's letter requested: "that Barr release the 448-page report’s introductions and executive summaries, and made some initial suggested redactions for doing so, according to Justice Department officials," the WaPo writes.
What happened then? A few weeks later Barr did just that, and absent occasional redactions - some of which apparently revealed that Russia had taped Bill Clinton having phone sex with Monica Lewinsky - he did just that.
So if Mueller thought Barr's memo was not inaccurate, and his ire was instead targeted at the media for "misinterpreting the investigation" - although it remains unclear just how they did this, after all Mueller does not dispute that there was no collusion (yes, Russiagaters, that means you) and did not dispute Barr's conclusion of no obstruction - then what is the point of these two rather confused pieces? Well, as noted above, tomorrow Barr is scheduled to testify on Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the investigation, and the entire article is meant to focus on the headlines of the WaPo (and NYT) article, and certainly not on paragraph 13 which, not only refutes the prevailing tone that Barr did something wrong, but in fact exonerates him. But that won't have any impact on tomorrow's hearing which is now assured to be a complete kangaroo court.
As for tonight's really big, if unspoken, story - if this is the best leak Mueller has to defy Barr and the president, then Trump has indeed won.
Thanks. br br Best post that rather than link it.... (
show quote)
Thanks Blade!
And will the leftists apologize or even correct themselves? Of course not. Which tells me their self-proclaimed mission to get to the truth is the real hoax.
I’m beginning to think many of the leftist posters here are the disinformists. Why else would they resist all reason with such passion.
Or else (and this is what I truly believe they all have in common) they so despise Judeo-Christian morals, values and ideas, that they are willing to believe, support, defend and cohort with, anything aligned against such, no matter the source.
With so much evidence against the Obama/Clinton cabal being the actual collusionists and obstructionists, in my mind, especially considering the big picture of all the combined issues, this is the only explanation that makes sense: it’s a spiritual blindness and an open rebellion against our Creator God.
Those who claim that religion has no place in politics are the most willingly ignorant; because it is impossible to separate a person’s moral beliefs and responsibilities to society from their convictions of where those morals come from.
“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station
to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
“
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That
to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and
accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
This Bill of Rights proves, and clearly states that, our nation was established on the fundamental principles that there is a Creator who “makes” all, and that our rights come from that Creator, not a government of elites, or from mob rule.
This statement explains why conservatives seem so patient with leftist over-reaches: “accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”
But here’s the place where the dividing line of intentions is clearly drawn and stated:
“But when a long train of abuses and
usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
The leftists, and leftist-sympathizing RINOs, clearly and consistently are the ones to openly pursue governmental abuses and usurpations
because they believe our rights and liberties come from people in government and not from God.
I really appreciate your reasoning and research skills, Blade! Thanks again!