ADVERTISEMENT

How I picture...

dpotter24

The Jack Dunlap Club
Gold Member
Jan 5, 2013
7,647
10,746
113
Mount Pleasant, SC
Democrats right now...

giphy.gif
 
Definitely a great day for Trump, maybe a new low point for CNN and a lot of democrats. The story will soon become the origin of the investigation and the way it was handled. That’s where true conspiracy(collusion)and wrongdoing probably took place.
 
I watched a little of Fox News and a little of CNN. I have no idea how our country has gotten their priorities so out of whack

I support Trump and think he is doing great things for the country.

I think he did some wrong things before being elected.

I think the democrats in DC are completely deranged and unhinged and that scares me. Schiff and Schumer look insane.
 
Chances your mentally challenged brain can process anything in the report? None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Really great comeback old sport. You should run along and find out what the supreme leader is telling you to think today. No matter what you do, don’t think for yourself!
 
Really great comeback old sport. You should run along and find out what the supreme leader is telling you to think today. No matter what you do, don’t think for yourself!
Says the guy who gets his talking points from news networks who repeatedly report fake news (proven fact), loves Crumbs Nancy, Crying Chuck, and Pencil Neck Adam. Or is it that you live AOC, Tlaib, and Omar? Let's see how far the level of retardation goes with which trio you associate with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: orangelvis
Says the guy who gets his talking points from news networks who repeatedly report fake news (proven fact), loves Crumbs Nancy, Crying Chuck, and Pencil Neck Adam. Or is it that you live AOC, Tlaib, and Omar? Let's see how far the level of retardation goes with which trio you associate with.
The immaturity is incredible. Once this time in the US is done, the era of Trump will he talked about as a dark time in the country. And guys like @nytigerfan and I will be saying we knew all along.
 
Last edited:
Says the guy who gets his talking points from news networks who repeatedly report fake news (proven fact), loves Crumbs Nancy, Crying Chuck, and Pencil Neck Adam. Or is it that you live AOC, Tlaib, and Omar? Let's see how far the level of retardation goes with which trio you associate with.

says the guy posting ron burgundy gifs as a commentary on a report he is too lazy (or too slow) to read. I have now read the report. Have you? That's what I thought. Now run along, your boss needs a fresh cup of coffee.
 
Democrats right now...

giphy.gif
I'm no Democrat, but I would advise you to read the report. It's pretty damning on the case for obstruction of justice. The fact that no indictment was pursued based on long standing DOJ guidelines against indicting a sitting president simply means they were referring the facts to Congress. Here are a few highlights since you didnt read and just got Sean Hannity's version.

Direct quotes from the report:

"Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russia-interference and obstruction investigations."

"The President engaged in a series of targeted efforts to control the investigation.”


"The President’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests." (Note that you do not have to be successful obstructing justice to be guilty of obstructing justice.)

"The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong."

And finally... "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state... Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment."

Note that the special counsel said in the quotes above that he would have exonerated him of any wrong doing in their report if the facts supported that but that the facts do NOT allow them to exonerate him of wrong doing and they laid out why they could not exonerate him. They stated that he had severely damaged the justice system and outlined through witness testimony that he clearly attempted to obstruct justice and was only unsuccessful because those around him refused orders and worked to obstruct his efforts to obstruct. How is that full exoneration as the president claims?

The fact that Trump nominated Bill Barr to write a summary to make it appear as if he had been exonerated of all wrong doing based on personal bias so that it could marinate with his supporters for a couple of weeks before actually releasing Muellers report was a shrewd political move. He knew that most people wouldn't read or have the unbiased intellect to interpret the report on their own when it finally came out. They would be ready to move on. So, why not tell his supporters he was fully exonerated and leave it to them to invest the time to see the special counsel stated otherwise in the report.

Regardless of the facts that show how flawed and corrupt this president is, the truth is that in order for Congress to to impeach and convict him of high crimes and misdemeanors there has to be an extremely high level of public disdain and support for such actions being taken by Congress. Without that our democracy would be irreparably damaged IMO. Unfortunately, due to the flawed and biased media coverage on both extremes of politics, the sufficient consensus needed to remove this president from office without damaging our democracy is not there. I honestly believe Trump is a more corrupt and flawed president than Nixon or Clinton was. Unfortunately, the bar has been moved and we are living in a different time with different standards for our political leaders.
 
I'm no Democrat, but I would advise you to read the report. It's pretty damning on the case for obstruction of justice. The fact that no indictment was pursued based on long standing DOJ guidelines against indicting a sitting president simply means they were referring the facts to Congress. Here are a few highlights since you didnt read and just got Sean Hannity's version.

Mueller's report states, "Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russia-interference and obstruction investigations." Further he writes, "The President engaged in a series of targeted efforts to control the investigation.”

It goes on to say, “The President’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests." (Note that you do not have to be successful obstructing justice to be guilty of obstructing justice.)

"The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong."

And finally... "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state... Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment."

Note that the special counsel said in the quotes above that he would have exonerated him of any wrong doing in their report if the facts supported that but that the facts do NOT allow them to exonerate him of wrong doing and they laid out why they could not exonerate him. They stated that he had severely damaged the justice system and outlined through witness testimony that he clearly attempted to obstruct justice and was only unsuccessful because those around him refused orders and worked to obstruct his efforts to obstruct. How is that full exoneration as the president claims?

The fact that Trump nominated Bill Barr to write a summary to make it appear as if he had been exonerated of all wrong doing based on personal bias so that it could marinate with his supporters for a couple of weeks before actually releasing Muellers report was a shrewd political move. He knew that most people wouldn't read or have the unbiased intellect to interpret the report on their own when it finally came out. They would be ready to move on. So, why not tell his supporters he was fully exonerated and leave it to them to invest the time to see the special counsel stated otherwise in the report.

Regardless of the facts that show how flawed and corrupt this president is, the truth is that in order for Congress to to impeach and convict him of high crimes and misdemeanors there has to be an extremely high level of public disdain and support for such actions being taken by Congress. Without that our democracy would be irreparably damaged IMO. Unfortunately, due to the flawed and biased media coverage on both extremes of politics, the sufficient consensus needed to remove this president from office without damaging our democracy is not there. I honestly believe Trump is a more corrupt and flawed president than Nixon or Clinton was. Unfortunately, the bar has been moved and we are living in a different time with different standards for our political leaders.

Great post, this particular line was spot on...

So, why not tell his supporters he was fully exonerated and leave it to them to invest the time to see the special counsel stated otherwise in the report.

It is clear that the trump supporters on this site have no intention or desire to read the report. That is a sad commentary on our current state of affairs. Like the poster above, they will just scream “fake news” at anything that does not confirm their current beliefs, as their supreme leader has commanded them to do.
 
I'm no Democrat, but I would advise you to read the report. It's pretty damning on the case for obstruction of justice. The fact that no indictment was pursued based on long standing DOJ guidelines against indicting a sitting president simply means they were referring the facts to Congress. Here are a few highlights since you didnt read and just got Sean Hannity's version.

Mueller's report states, "Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russia-interference and obstruction investigations." Further he writes, "The President engaged in a series of targeted efforts to control the investigation.”

It goes on to say, “The President’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests." (Note that you do not have to be successful obstructing justice to be guilty of obstructing justice.)

"The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong."

And finally... "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state... Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment."

Note that the special counsel said in the quotes above that he would have exonerated him of any wrong doing in their report if the facts supported that but that the facts do NOT allow them to exonerate him of wrong doing and they laid out why they could not exonerate him. They stated that he had severely damaged the justice system and outlined through witness testimony that he clearly attempted to obstruct justice and was only unsuccessful because those around him refused orders and worked to obstruct his efforts to obstruct. How is that full exoneration as the president claims?

The fact that Trump nominated Bill Barr to write a summary to make it appear as if he had been exonerated of all wrong doing based on personal bias so that it could marinate with his supporters for a couple of weeks before actually releasing Muellers report was a shrewd political move. He knew that most people wouldn't read or have the unbiased intellect to interpret the report on their own when it finally came out. They would be ready to move on. So, why not tell his supporters he was fully exonerated and leave it to them to invest the time to see the special counsel stated otherwise in the report.

Regardless of the facts that show how flawed and corrupt this president is, the truth is that in order for Congress to to impeach and convict him of high crimes and misdemeanors there has to be an extremely high level of public disdain and support for such actions being taken by Congress. Without that our democracy would be irreparably damaged IMO. Unfortunately, due to the flawed and biased media coverage on both extremes of politics, the sufficient consensus needed to remove this president from office without damaging our democracy is not there. I honestly believe Trump is a more corrupt and flawed president than Nixon or Clinton was. Unfortunately, the bar has been moved and we are living in a different time with different standards for our political leaders.
Very well said. It’s a shame that Trump can just rely on the stupidity of his base and we all have to pay the price
 
I'm no Democrat, but I would advise you to read the report. It's pretty damning on the case for obstruction of justice. The fact that no indictment was pursued based on long standing DOJ guidelines against indicting a sitting president simply means they were referring the facts to Congress. Here are a few highlights since you didnt read and just got Sean Hannity's version.

Direct quotes from the report:

"Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russia-interference and obstruction investigations."

"The President engaged in a series of targeted efforts to control the investigation.”


"The President’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests." (Note that you do not have to be successful obstructing justice to be guilty of obstructing justice.)

"The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong."

And finally... "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state... Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment."

Note that the special counsel said in the quotes above that he would have exonerated him of any wrong doing in their report if the facts supported that but that the facts do NOT allow them to exonerate him of wrong doing and they laid out why they could not exonerate him. They stated that he had severely damaged the justice system and outlined through witness testimony that he clearly attempted to obstruct justice and was only unsuccessful because those around him refused orders and worked to obstruct his efforts to obstruct. How is that full exoneration as the president claims?

The fact that Trump nominated Bill Barr to write a summary to make it appear as if he had been exonerated of all wrong doing based on personal bias so that it could marinate with his supporters for a couple of weeks before actually releasing Muellers report was a shrewd political move. He knew that most people wouldn't read or have the unbiased intellect to interpret the report on their own when it finally came out. They would be ready to move on. So, why not tell his supporters he was fully exonerated and leave it to them to invest the time to see the special counsel stated otherwise in the report.

Regardless of the facts that show how flawed and corrupt this president is, the truth is that in order for Congress to to impeach and convict him of high crimes and misdemeanors there has to be an extremely high level of public disdain and support for such actions being taken by Congress. Without that our democracy would be irreparably damaged IMO. Unfortunately, due to the flawed and biased media coverage on both extremes of politics, the sufficient consensus needed to remove this president from office without damaging our democracy is not there. I honestly believe Trump is a more corrupt and flawed president than Nixon or Clinton was. Unfortunately, the bar has been moved and we are living in a different time with different standards for our political leaders.
What are you? Always thought you were a Democrat based on your posts. You’re by far the most informative, thorough, and fact based poster on anything politics on the board.
 
Have you read it yet?

Read most of it. Then, went back to pages referenced by both sides. The 2nd part of the report is exactly what I thought it would be. It is not traditional legal writing, but was meant to paint Trump in a bad light. He never has been a saint, and he looks bad in places, but how would you react if you knew you were innocent and a group of your haters were investigating you? He could not and did not obstruct justice, period.

I am also waiting for Trump's legal team to release their response. The guy referenced on page 61, Michael Caputo, was on tv last night describing his Mueller team interview and how it was written on page 61. The report states that he, Caputo was contacted by a Russian named Henry Greenburg. Caputo hired a private investigator to check out Greenburg. Apparently, Mr. Greenburg has been an FBI asset for the last 17 years. Why was that left out of the report? We will find out soon, and much more. There are people gong to jail for what they put this country through.
Anyone who thinks the "I'm f@#ked" comment is a sign of guilt is an idiot. The msm are idiots.
 
Last edited:
Read most of it. Then, went back to pages referenced by both sides. The 2nd part of the report is exactly what I thought it would be. It is not traditional legal writing, but was meant to paint Trump in a bad light. He never has been a saint, and he looks bad in places, but how would you react if you knew you were innocent and a group of your haters were investigating you? He could not and did not obstruct justice, period.

I am also waiting for Trump's legal team to release their response. The guy referenced on page 61, Michael Caputo, was on tv last night describing his Mueller team interview and how it was written on page 61. The report states that he, Caputo was contacted by a Russian named Henry Greenburg. Caputo hired a private investigator to check out Greenburg. Apparently, Mr. Greenburg has been an FBI asset for the last 17 years. Why was that left out of the report? We will find out soon, and much more. There are people gong to jail for what they put this country through.
Anyone who thinks the "I'm f@#ked" comment is a sign of guilt is an idiot. The msm are idiots.

I stopped at "not traditional legal writing, since there is literally zero chance you know what "traditional legal writing is"...
 
I stopped at "not traditional legal writing, since there is literally zero chance you know what "traditional legal writing is"...

Ah, the little defender of open borders, abstract gender identification pronouns and non inclusive, inclusiveness arrives on the scene. Hey, at least you got in the thread before the arrests begin.

36c721087c26034fb112448dd41e38b1cbdaa891d7bdd9097fe277bedcc9981b.png
 
Last edited:
Ah, the little defender of open borders, abstract gender identification pronouns and non inclusive, inclusiveness arrives on the scene. Hey, at least you got in the thread before the arrests begin.

i have never once in my life advocated for open borders. and, overwhelming majorities of Democrats don't support open borders.

calling someone "they" because they prefer it is not the end of the world. truly.
 
i have never once in my life advocated for open borders. and, overwhelming majorities of Democrats don't support open borders.

calling someone "they" because they prefer it is not the end of the world. truly.

I don't have the time to look it up, but you most certainly stated that borders were "passe`" in a thread some time ago. And, many of that overwhelming majority of which you speak, will be voting for Trump; just for that reason.
 
i have never once in my life advocated for open borders. and, overwhelming majorities of Democrats don't support open borders.

calling someone "they" because they prefer it is not the end of the world. truly.

What did you infer here?

"hough I think I'm going to regret this, I'll bite.

Honestly, I'm gonna guess that none of the liberals on this board support full amnesty for undocumented people. So I'm curious who this is even directed at?

Never mind the very simple fact that under any scheme discussed or proposed a person who has been deported in the past will never be eligible for expedited procedures.

Personally, I believe in expanding the seasonal work visas available to Mexico and Canada and providing a path to citizenship for undocumented folks already here who satisfy some set of criteria. We live in a global society, whether you want to believe it or not. In the long run, keeping Mexicans out of america is a losing proposition.

Borders are so 1650 :)"

2 iceheart08, Jul 3, 2015
Last edited: Jul 3, 20
 
What did you infer here?

"hough I think I'm going to regret this, I'll bite.

Honestly, I'm gonna guess that none of the liberals on this board support full amnesty for undocumented people. So I'm curious who this is even directed at?

Never mind the very simple fact that under any scheme discussed or proposed a person who has been deported in the past will never be eligible for expedited procedures.

Personally, I believe in expanding the seasonal work visas available to Mexico and Canada and providing a path to citizenship for undocumented folks already here who satisfy some set of criteria. We live in a global society, whether you want to believe it or not. In the long run, keeping Mexicans out of america is a losing proposition.

Borders are so 1650 :)"

2 iceheart08, Jul 3, 2015
Last edited: Jul 3, 20

i didnt infer anything. I outright stated my belief. the glib comment at the end isnt suggesting we do away with borders, it was a joke. hence the smiley face. but continuing to believe we can isolate ourselves or that keeping immigrants out of the country is a path to economic success is the wrong answer. My suggestion that we expand seasonal work visas, by definition, means I support a secure border, with an open border, we wouldn't need visas.

I do appreciate that you managed to pull up a post of mine from 2015.
 
I know Trump's not the cleanest knife in the drawer, but after years of "Mueller is coming", "It's Mueller Time" etc, the fact that Mueller basically pitched a nothing-burger is hilarious to me.

"The President’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests." (Note that you do not have to be successful obstructing justice to be guilty of obstructing justice.)

So basically he didn't actually obstruct (I get the part about not having to be successful to be guilty).

Here's the thing about exoneration - this case is a little different but overall investigations rarely 'exonerate' anyone. They either find sufficient reason and evidence to press charges, or they don't.
 
I know Trump's not the cleanest knife in the drawer, but after years of "Mueller is coming", "It's Mueller Time" etc, the fact that Mueller basically pitched a nothing-burger is hilarious to me.

So basically he didn't actually obstruct (I get the part about not having to be successful to be guilty).

Here's the thing about exoneration - this case is a little different but overall investigations rarely 'exonerate' anyone. They either find sufficient reason and evidence to press charges, or they don't.
This case isnt just a little different, it is absolutely unrelated to any other investigation and unique to the Presidency. Comparing a lack of indictment of the president by Mueller to any other criminal investigation where there is no indictment is baseless. Mueller adhered to the long standing DOJ guidance of not indicting a sitting president and referred the facts in the case to Congress to take up under the constitution. The presidency is the only position in America where an investigation would not lead to an indictment by the DOJ if they felt he was guilty. The ONLY ONE. It doesnt compare in any way, shape or form to any other case where there is a lack of indictment.

Mueller went on to outline almost a dozen damning examples where Trump, in his investigation's eyes, may have obstructed justice. That doesnt happen when a decision is made to not indict an average Joe that is not the president. Because Mueller could not indict under DOJ guidance, he said that did not deter him from stating that the president was innocent if he felt he was. He said that he would have stated so and closed the discussion but that the evidence of which there were double digit examples provided, did not allow him to do that. Big difference.
 
I know Trump's not the cleanest knife in the drawer, but after years of "Mueller is coming", "It's Mueller Time" etc, the fact that Mueller basically pitched a nothing-burger is hilarious to me.



So basically he didn't actually obstruct (I get the part about not having to be successful to be guilty).

Here's the thing about exoneration - this case is a little different but overall investigations rarely 'exonerate' anyone. They either find sufficient reason and evidence to press charges, or they don't.

Mueller could have found a paper trail of trump emailing Putin to hack the election and he still would not indicted as 1clemzunfan pointed out.
 
^^^^^^^^^^ A whole lot of bullshit being bandied about ^^^^^^ I think we've found the 2 people who still watch CNN.
 
^^^^^^^^^^ A whole lot of bullshit being bandied about ^^^^^^ I think we've found the 2 people who still watch CNN.
Friend, the question here is this: Do dem's make the case for impeachment or do they make the case to win in 2020. Thats where it stands with congress, because Mueller handed them an air tight case for obstruction. Fact is that Trumps supporters are so rabid and removed from reality the no balls democratic party is trying to analyze this to death in order to arrive at a winning solution for 2020.

I don't gaf about either party, but watch now as Trump will shake the constitution to its core if Congress does impeach or subpoena his financial information. He'll try to get the judicial branch to block it.

Trump cares not for rule of law or how our constitution works, only 'winning' and doing what he wants. You have to at least be honest enough with yourself to understand that.
 
Friend, the question here is this: Do dem's make the case for impeachment or do they make the case to win in 2020. Thats where it stands with congress, because Mueller handed them an air tight case for obstruction. Fact is that Trumps supporters are so rabid and removed from reality the no balls democratic party is trying to analyze this to death in order to arrive at a winning solution for 2020.

I don't gaf about either party, but watch now as Trump will shake the constitution to its core if Congress does impeach or subpoena his financial information. He'll try to get the judicial branch to block it.

Trump cares not for rule of law or how our constitution works, only 'winning' and doing what he wants. You have to at least be honest enough with yourself to understand that.

We found another one. So much bullshit.
So, I guess electing a socialist is caring for the rule of law,( which you don't care about; seeing what has been done to Trump). Electing a socialist somehow is pro Constitution? Are you not the least bit interested in how all of this started? You think this is Trump's doing? LMAO!!
FYI- Trump is saving the country from people who don't give a rat's ass about the Constitution or the county.
Trust me, you don't long to wait now. The truth is coming!
 
Last edited:
We found another one. So much bullshit.
So, I guess electing a socialist is caring for the rule of law,( which you don't care about; seeing what has been done to Trump). Electing a socialist somehow is pro Constitution? Are you not the least bit interested in how all of this started? You think this is Trump's doing? LMAO!!
FYI- Trump is saving the country from people who don't give a rat's ass about the Constitution or the county.
Trust me, you don't long to wait now. The truth is coming!
Good i don't long to wait now. ThanksThanks.

Your whole diatribe sounds like handyman and your narrative was fed to you by charlatans.
 
Good i don't long to wait now. ThanksThanks.

Your whole diatribe sounds like handyman and your narrative was fed to you by charlatans.

??
Admittedly, I have no idea what you're saying. Here's what you need to know:
****Admiral Mike Rogers will go down in history as the PATRIOT that saved the United States of America**** just wanted to put this out there..

1. OIG report on the FISA process coming out by early June, (according to Barr)

2. Then, Trump will declassify everything that the Mueller investigation prevented him from doing; (because of ongoing investigation restrictions)

3. Then, the 1.5 year investigation of John Huber, who has been working with the evidence accumulated by the OIG, will result in unsealing indictments that have been amassing for months.

Other significant items of interest: Nunes sent 8 criminal referrals to the AG recently. Julian Assange is being extradited here and will offer some significant facts in his defense.

Not gonna bash you too much. Because in reality, you and many well-meaning people have been duped by a concerted msm effort to create a type of "Mandela Effect" regarding all things Trump. ( I see Joe Biden is spouting some of the disinformation in his new video)
 
??
Admittedly, I have no idea what you're saying. Here's what you need to know:
****Admiral Mike Rogers will go down in history as the PATRIOT that saved the United States of America**** just wanted to put this out there..

1. OIG report on the FISA process coming out by early June, (according to Barr)

2. Then, Trump will declassify everything that the Mueller investigation prevented him from doing; (because of ongoing investigation restrictions)

3. Then, the 1.5 year investigation of John Huber, who has been working with the evidence accumulated by the OIG, will result in unsealing indictments that have been amassing for months.

Other significant items of interest: Nunes sent 8 criminal referrals to the AG recently. Julian Assange is being extradited here and will offer some significant facts in his defense.

Not gonna bash you too much. Because in reality, you and many well-meaning people have been duped by a concerted msm effort to create a type of "Mandela Effect" regarding all things Trump. ( I see Joe Biden is spouting some of the disinformation in his new video)

lol

Your narrative is bogus fake news.

On Tuesday, The New York Times first reported that the special counsel wrote to Barr saying he disagreed with the attorney general's summary of its nearly two-year investigation.

Days after Barr submitted his "principal conclusions" on the investigation, Mueller wrote a letter saying he "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office's work and conclusions," according to The Washington Post.

"There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation," the letter continued. "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."
 
lol

Your narrative is bogus fake news.

On Tuesday, The New York Times first reported that the special counsel wrote to Barr saying he disagreed with the attorney general's summary of its nearly two-year investigation.

Days after Barr submitted his "principal conclusions" on the investigation, Mueller wrote a letter saying he "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office's work and conclusions," according to The Washington Post.

"There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation," the letter continued. "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."

You're believing fake news reports about Mueller's letter. LOL!!
Mueller told Barr in a phone conversation that he was not unhappy with Barr's factual representation in his 4 page summary of the SC findings, but Mueller was, in fact, upset about the msm's portrayal of the findings.

"When Barr pressed him,(Mueller), whether he thought Barr’s letter was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not, but felt that the media coverage of the letter was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said."--WashPost--

"In a cordial and professional conversation, the Special Counsel emphasized that nothing in the Attorney General’s March 24 letter was inaccurate or misleading. But, he expressed frustration over the lack of context and the resulting media coverage regarding the Special Counsel’s obstruction analysis. They then discussed whether additional context from the report would be helpful and could be quickly released. However, the Attorney General ultimately determined that it would not be productive to release the report in piecemeal fashion.

The Attorney General and the Special Counsel agreed to get the full report out with necessary redactions as expeditiously as possible. The next day, the Attorney General sent a letter to Congress reiterating that his March 24 letter was not intended to be a summary of the report, but instead only stated the Special Counsel’s principal conclusions, and volunteered to testify before both Senate and House Judiciary Committees on May 1 and 2."--WashPost--

Dems are extremely nervous right now and are throwing smoke bombs everywhere they can. They know what's coming right around the corner; an avalanche of TRUTH! Stay tuned my friend.
 
ADVERTISEMENT