It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: underwerks
It's funny how the right wing lemmings here are already accusing the left of not accepting the Mueller report
and calling them hypocritical while they, themselves, haven't read the report either.
Its like some kind of idiot singularity.
Because the left is already spreading their usual spin suggesting the report is getting redacted to hide ""something"".
originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: vinifalou
Because the left is already spreading their usual spin suggesting the report is getting redacted to hide ""something"".
You must admit that Barr, trumps hand picked AG, doing the redacting, looks like a cover up.
Anyway, the unredacted investigation has already been leaked. Rudy G. had a copy already.
all I want is for trump to acknowledge that on a world stage. do you think he'll do that?
On Friday, President Trump appeared to to acknowledge that the country did, in fact, interfere.
originally posted by: Sillyolme
This report in no way exonerates the president.
A 1989 memo Barr wrote summarizing the “principal conclusions” of a D.O.J. ruling apparently left out several of those principal conclusions.
Later this week, Attorney General William Barr is expected to release a redacted version of Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. In his 4-page summary of the 400-odd-page report, Barr noted that the special counsel “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government,” but did not come to a conclusion about whether the president had obstructed justice. That Barr took it upon himself to clear Donald Trump of obstruction, even though Mueller had not, raised a number of questions about how closely the A.G. had hewed to the spirit of the report, and whether he’d put his own Trump-supporting spin on it—questions that increased after members of Mueller’s team reportedly expressed frustration that Barr had shortchanged their work. And according to new insight from law professor Ryan Goodman, it seems those questions are entirely reasonable!
Goodman, who is a former Defense Department special counsel, details a remarkably similar fight from 1989 in which Barr, then head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, was involved. The O.L.C. had determined that the F.B.I. was allowed to take people into custody in foreign countries without the consent of those countries’ governments—a ruling that seemed to pave the way, Goodman notes, for the eventual arrest of former Panamanian leader Manuel Antonio Noriega. This was a contentious position to take, and Barr was asked to provide the memo offering the detailed legal rationale for allowing such detentions. He declined, instead offering a 13-page document that “summarizes the principal conclusions.” When Congress, and then The Washington Post, obtained the full opinion in 1991, it was quickly noted that several conclusions from the full document hadn’t been included in Barr’s summary. Foremost among them was that the opinion authorized the president of the United States to ignore the United Nations Charter.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Sillyolme
lol
This tells us all we need to know about how fair and impartial this POS is.
maybe she has seen the report
lol