ADVERTISEMENT

Whodathunkit?

Pokeabear

Heisman Candidate
Feb 6, 2007
9,393
2,631
113
Center-ring
Mueller told the attorney general that the depiction of his findings failed to capture ‘context, nature, and substance’ of probe

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2019/04/30/mueller-told-the-attorney-general-that-the-depiction-of-his-findings-failed-to-capture-context-nature-and-substance-of-probe

By Washington Post Staff
April 30 at 7:07 PM

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III expressed his concerns in a letter to William P. Barr after the attorney general publicized Mueller’s principal conclusions. The letter was followed by a phone call during which Mueller pressed Barr to release executive summaries of his report.
This is a developing story. It will be updated
 
Mueller complained that Barr’s letter did not capture ‘context’ of Trump probe
Matt Zapotosky

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...82d3f3d96d5_story.html?utm_term=.bf682f7b5ef8
Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III submitted his investigation to the Justice Department in March. (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)
Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III wrote a letter in late March complaining to Attorney General William P. Barr that a four-page memo to Congress describing the principal conclusions of the investigation into President Trump “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of Mueller’s work, according to a copy of the letter reviewed Tuesday by The Washington Post.

At the time the letter was sent on March 27, Barr had announced that Mueller had not found a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian officials seeking to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. Barr also said Mueller had not reached a conclusion about whether Trump had tried to obstruct justice, but Barr reviewed the evidence and found it insufficient to support such a charge.

Days after Barr’s announcement, Mueller wrote a previously unknown private letter to the Justice Department, which revealed a degree of dissatisfaction with the public discussion of Mueller’s work that shocked senior Justice Department officials, according to people familiar with the discussions.

[Justice Dept., House Democrats at impasse over Barr hearing]

“The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions,” Mueller wrote. “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.”

The letter made a key request: 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.

Justice Department officials said Tuesday they were taken aback by the tone of Mueller’s letter, and it came as a surprise to them that he had such concerns. Until they received the letter, they believed Mueller was in agreement with them on the process of reviewing the report and redacting certain types of information, a process that took several weeks. Barr has testified to Congress previously that Mueller declined the opportunity to review his four-page letter to lawmakers that distilled the essence of the special counsel’s findings.

In his letter, Mueller wrote that the redaction process “need not delay release of the enclosed materials. Release at this time would alleviate the misunderstandings that have arisen and would answer congressional and public questions about the nature and outcome of our investigation.”

Barr is scheduled to appear Wednesday morning before the Senate Judiciary Committee — a much-anticipated public confrontation between the nation’s top law enforcement official and Democratic lawmakers, where he is likely to be questioned at length about his interactions with Mueller.

A day after the letter was sent, Barr and Mueller spoke by phone for about 15 minutes, according to law enforcement officials.

In that call, Mueller said he was concerned that news coverage of the obstruction investigation was misguided and creating public misunderstandings about the office’s work, according to Justice Department officials.

When Barr pressed him 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.

In their call, Barr also took issue with Mueller calling his letter a “summary,” saying he had never meant his letter to summarize the voluminous report, but instead provide an account of the top conclusions, officials said.

Justice Department officials said in some ways, the phone conversation was more cordial than the letter that preceded it, but they did express some differences of opinion about how to proceed.

Barr said he did not want to put out pieces of the report, but rather issue it all at once with redactions, and didn’t want to change course now, according to officials.

Throughout the conversation, Mueller’s main worry was that the public was not getting an accurate understanding of the obstruction investigation, officials said.

“After the Attorney General received Special Counsel Mueller’s letter, he called him to discuss it,” a Justice Department spokeswoman said Tuesday. “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 spokeswoman’s statement continues. “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.”

Some senior Justice Department officials were frustrated by Mueller’s complaints, because they had expected that the report would reach them with proposed redactions the first time they got it, but it did not. Even when Mueller sent along his suggested redactions, those covered only a few areas of protected information, and the documents required further review, these people said.

Wednesday’s hearing will be the first time lawmakers will get to question Barr since the Mueller report was released on April 18, and he is expected to face a raft of tough questions from Democrats about his public announcement of the findings, his private interactions with Mueller, and his views about President Trump’s conduct.

Republicans on the committee are expected to question Barr about an assertion he made earlier this month that government officials had engaged in “spying” on the Trump campaign — a comment that was seized on by the president’s supporters as evidence the investigation into the president was biased.

Barr is also scheduled to testify Thursday before a House committee, but that hearing could be canceled or postponed amid a dispute about whether committee staff lawyers will question the attorney general.

Democrats have accused Barr of downplaying the seriousness of the evidence against the president.

In the report, Mueller described ten significant episodes of possible obstruction of justice, but said that due to long-standing Justice Department policy that says a sitting president cannot be indicted, and because of Justice Department practice regarding fairness toward those under investigation, his team did not reach a conclusion about whether the president had committed a crime.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/30/us/politics/mueller-barr.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

WASHINGTON — Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, wrote a letter in late March to Attorney General William P. Barr objecting to his early description of the Russia investigation’s conclusions that appeared to clear President Trump on possible obstruction of justice, according to the Justice Department.

The letter adds to the growing evidence of a rift between them and is another sign of the anger among the special counsel’s investigators about Mr. Barr’s characterization of their findings, which allowed Mr. Trump to wrongly claim he had been vindicated.

It was unclear what specific objections Mr. Mueller raised in his letter. Mr. Barr defended his descriptions of the investigation’s conclusions in conversations with Mr. Mueller over the days after he sent the letter, according to two people with knowledge of their discussions.

Mr. Barr, who was scheduled to testify on Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the investigation, has said publicly that he disagrees with some of the legal reasoning in the Mueller report. Senior Democratic lawmakers have invited Mr. Mueller to testify in the coming weeks but have been unable to secure a date for his testimony. “The special counsel emphasized that nothing in the attorney general’s March 24 letter was inaccurate or misleading,” a Justice Department spokeswoman, Kerri Kupec, said in response to a request for comment made on Tuesday afternoon. “But he expressed frustration over the lack of context and the resulting media coverage regarding the special counsel’s obstruction analysis.”

A spokesman for the special counsel’s office declined to comment.

A central issue in the simmering dispute is how the public’s understanding of the Mueller report has been shaped since the special counsel ended his investigation and delivered his 448-page report on March 22 to the attorney general, his boss and longtime friend. The four-page letter that Mr. Barr sent to Congress two days later gave little detail about the special counsel’s findings and created the impression that Mr. Mueller’s team found no wrongdoing, allowing Mr. Trump to declare he had been exonerated.

But when Mr. Mueller’s report was released on April 18, it painted a far more damning picture of Mr. Trump and showed that Mr. Mueller believed that significant evidence existed that Mr. Trump obstructed justice.

Over the past month, other signs of friction between the attorney general and the special counsel have emerged over issues like legal theories about constitutional protections afforded to presidents to do their job and how Mr. Mueller’s team conducted the investigation.

In congressional testimony in April before the report was released, Mr. Barr demurred when asked whether he believed that the investigation was a “witch hunt” — Mr. Trump’s preferred term. It “depends on where you’re sitting,” Mr. Barr replied. “If you are somebody who’s being falsely accused of something, you would tend to view the investigation as a witch hunt,” he said, an apparent reference to the president.

His testimony stood in contrast to comments he made during his confirmation hearing in January. “I don’t believe Mr. Mueller would be involved in a witch hunt,” he said then.

A rift between the men appeared to develop in the intervening months as the special counsel wrapped up his inquiry.

Mr. Barr and senior Justice Department officials were frustrated with how Mr. Mueller ended his investigation and crafted his report, according to the two people with knowledge of the discussions and another person briefed on the matter.

They expressed irritation that Mr. Mueller fell short of his assignment by declining to make a decision about whether Mr. Trump broke the law. That left Mr. Barr to clear Mr. Trump without the special counsel’s backing.

The senior department officials also found Mr. Mueller’s rationale for stopping short of deciding whether Mr. Trump committed a crime to be confusing and contradictory, and they concluded that Mr. Mueller’s report showed that there was no case against Mr. Trump. But Mr. Mueller did lay out evidence against the president. After explaining that he had declined to make a prosecutorial judgment, citing as a factor a Justice Department view that sitting presidents cannot be indicted, the special counsel detailed more than a dozen attempts by the president to impede the inquiry. He also left open the door for charges after Mr. Trump leaves office.

“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,” Mr. Mueller and his investigators wrote. “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.”

Mr. Mueller’s report, the attorney general and the other senior law enforcement officials believed, read like it had been written for consumption by Congress and the public, not like a confidential report to Mr. Barr, as required under the regulations governing the special counsel.

Some of the special counsel’s investigators have told associates that they were angry about Mr. Barr’s initial characterization of their findings, government officials and others have said, and that their conclusions were more troubling for President Trump than Mr. Barr indicated in his four-page letter. That proved to be the case.

In once instance, Mr. Barr took Mr. Mueller’s words out of context to suggest that the president had no motive to obstruct justice. In another instance, he plucked a fragment from a sentence in the Mueller report that made a conclusion seem less damaging for the president.

Investigators wrote, “Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” Mr. Barr’s letter only quoted the passage that the investigation had found no conspiracy or coordination.

It is not clear whether members of Mr. Mueller’s team were angered by these points in particular, or whether Mr. Mueller’s letter cited them.

Despite the disagreement about the report, members of Mr. Mueller’s team worked alongside senior Justice Department officials to redact sensitive information from the report before it was released.

Hours before the public release of the Mueller report, Mr. Barr said during a news conference that he had “disagreed with some of the special counsel’s legal theories” about what constitutes presidential obstruction of justice. He also said repeatedly that the special counsel had found “no collusion” between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. President Trump often uses the term, but Mr. Mueller’s investigators pointed out it had no legal standard and left it out of their judgments.

Instead, investigators wrote that they had not found evidence to prove a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russians.

Mr. Barr also said during the news conference that some of Mr. Trump’s efforts to thwart the investigation needed to be put in “context.”

“There is substantial evidence to show that the president was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks,” he said.
 
“The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions,” Mueller wrote. “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.”
 
This is so pathetic. They want clicks. Don’t you get this by now? You are being strung along for your clicks. There’s nothing there. They combed through EVERYTHING. You honestly think trump eluded this special counsel? He tricked them? The idiot? The buffoon? He is so stupid but he covered his tracks so well that a former fbi director just couldn’t find anything?

Seriously what is wrong with you? It’s over. Hopefully you can save your party when we find out trump took legal means to pay a small amount or no taxes.

tenor.gif
 
“The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions,” Mueller wrote. “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.”

The only confusion is cnn, Wapo, nyt, msnbc and your ilk.
 
Mueller told the attorney general that the depiction of his findings failed to capture ‘context, nature, and substance’ of probe

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2019/04/30/mueller-told-the-attorney-general-that-the-depiction-of-his-findings-failed-to-capture-context-nature-and-substance-of-probe

By Washington Post Staff
April 30 at 7:07 PM

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III expressed his concerns in a letter to William P. Barr after the attorney general publicized Mueller’s principal conclusions. The letter was followed by a phone call during which Mueller pressed Barr to release executive summaries of his report.
This is a developing story. It will be updated
You've read it twice. Tell us what the charges are.
 
You've read it twice. Tell us what the charges are.
According to the DOJ OLC that Mueller followed you can’t charge a president. It’s up to Congress to impeach. The Mueller report is a roadmap and referral to congress for impeachment. Give it a read sometime. :cool:
 
According to the DOJ OLC that Mueller followed you can’t charge a president. It’s up to Congress to impeach. The Mueller report is a roadmap and referral to congress for impeachment. Give it a read sometime. :cool:
What are they waiting for?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MegaPoke
According to the DOJ OLC that Mueller followed you can’t charge a president. It’s up to Congress to impeach. The Mueller report is a roadmap and referral to congress for impeachment. Give it a read sometime. :cool:

But but but did you read the wapo? Nothing Barr said was innacurate. Pinning your hopes and dreams on nuance?
 
According to the DOJ OLC that Mueller followed you can’t charge a president. It’s up to Congress to impeach. The Mueller report is a roadmap and referral to congress for impeachment. Give it a read sometime. :cool:
But seriously though, roadmap aside, what are the charges?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GunsOfFrankEaton
@Pokeabear,

Honest question....how many of these anonymously sourced reports are you going to continue to believe? If Mueller wanted to dispute the reporting he could do so and hasn't. He could release the letter he sent, but hasn't. All you have is an very anonymously sourced article from an organization that leans left. Use a little common sense (if you have any). You wouldn't believe an anonymously sourced report from FoxNews. I'm not expecting you to turn Republican here. You are a lefty and that's your choice. I just want you to prove you can think a little for yourself and question the echo chamber you surround yourself with.
 
@Pokeabear,

Honest question....how many of these anonymously sourced reports are you going to continue to believe? If Mueller wanted to dispute the reporting he could do so and hasn't. He could release the letter he sent, but hasn't. All you have is an very anonymously sourced article from an organization that leans left. Use a little common sense (if you have any). You wouldn't believe an anonymously sourced report from FoxNews. I'm not expecting you to turn Republican here. You are a lefty and that's your choice. I just want you to prove you can think a little for yourself and question the echo chamber you surround yourself with.
L-O-L
 
Trump is in seriously trouble, if, and this is a big if...IF the Democratic congressional leadership decides to get off their a** and do something.

Right now, the Democratic congressional leadership is playing softball. Granted, there are numerous political reasons for the softball game: (1) Confidence (or overconfidence?) that they will beat Trump in 2020; (2) false comparisons to Clinton's impeachement fiasco; and (3) worry that they are playing Trump's game.

Robert Mueller has provided the Democrats all they need to not only impeach a sitting President but also expose an Attorney General for the political hack that he is.

The question remains: Are Democras smart and courageous enough to do what needs to be done?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pokeabear
Trump is in seriously trouble, if, and this is a big if...IF the Democratic congressional leadership decides to get off their a** and do something.

Right now, the Democratic congressional leadership is playing softball. Granted, there are numerous political reasons for the softball game: (1) Confidence (or overconfidence?) that they will beat Trump in 2020; (2) false comparisons to Clinton's impeachement fiasco; and (3) worry that they are playing Trump's game.

Robert Mueller has provided the Democrats all they need to not only impeach a sitting President but also expose an Attorney General for the political hack that he is.

The question remains: Are Democras smart and courageous enough to do what needs to be done?
If the Dems play the impeachment game with the “evidence” found from the Mueller Report they can kiss the 2020 election goodbye. Of all people, Nancy is the one that has the foresight into this and has been hesitant at best to call for impeachment and has publicly said its not the right move.

Middle America sees that no further indictments were made and no obstruction charges brought. The PR battle with Russian Collusion/Obstruction has been lost by the Left. But keep trying it...
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT