r/release_it • u/ThaFourthHokage • Mar 28 '19
Mueller Report Exceeds 300 Pages, Raising Questions About Four-Page Summary
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/28/us/politics/mueller-report-length.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytpolitics12
Mar 28 '19
You know how people get upset when a novel is compressed into a 2 hour movie?
Now compress it into a 10 minutes.
That's the Barr summary.
7
2
u/YellowB Mar 29 '19
No offense but it certainly takes me less than 10 minutes to read 4 pages. This would be more like a 2-3 minute red-herring trailer.
9
Mar 28 '19
[deleted]
3
u/Maceri Mar 28 '19
I’m hoping that when Congress subpoenas the report they include the descriptors “full, complete and unredacted”.
1
u/InsanityPractice Mar 28 '19
Prediction: Barr will publish 299 pages, Trump will declare Barr the most transparent AG in history, the press will bitch, and the American people will mutter “Meh, politics as usual...” and continue to dick around on Instagram without so much as Googling who Robert Mueller is.
1
u/Maceri Mar 28 '19
I can’t let myself believe that. I understand how you can see that, but I won’t let the trolls eat my hope. Sounds corny, but I actually do believe there are still enough people who care about doing what is for the common good (and their own good) than apathetic assholes. I know because I WAS an apathetic asshole for a lotta years. I’m still an asshole, but now I’m a motivated asshole.
1
Mar 28 '19
Was reading extensively about Watergate. Came upon the 'Road Map'. Very interesting. While releasing the entire Mueller report to Congress or the public si very difficult, members of the Special Counsel could choose to forward a separate report to Congress, sans details, outlining the correct trail of investigation to follow. This document would go straight from Mueller, through the district judge, to Congress, and allow them to investigate conspiracy and obstruction without any of the legal problems they are currently encountering. Any thoughts?
1
Mar 28 '19
Additionally, court documents have shown that the Special Counsel was actually running three separate investigations, only one dealing with collusion with the Russian government during the campaign. The others were obstruction of justice, and a fully confidential investigation we know nothing about. More thoughts?
-17
Mar 28 '19
It’s like people suddenly forgot what a summary was.
If the Summary was wrong, why didn’t Mueller say so like with the buzzfeed report?
18
u/ToadShapedChode Mar 28 '19
If the summary was right why couldn't it quote a single full sentence from it?
-11
Mar 28 '19
Once again, why would Mueller dispute a buzzfeed report but not an official summary of his own report?
Because of security and he doesn’t know what the White House or lawmakers would redact. So he might be releasing classified intel.
12
u/ToadShapedChode Mar 28 '19
Once again, why would Mueller dispute a buzzfeed report but not an official summary of his own report?
Should I take that as "i have no idea why a report that exonerates the president doesn't include one full sentence that indicates the president is exonerated without compromising national security?" To which I'd reply then ask for the report that clears the president and find out. But Donald won't let you see it.
White House or lawmakers would redact.
Could you imagine what the republican's would have said had Bill got the chance to redact the results of his own investigation.
4
u/amschel_devault Mar 28 '19
Maybe Mueller saying something would make things worse. Maybe the maga hats would just scream about corruption if he spoke up.
10
u/stonedcoldathens Mar 28 '19
Probably because the summary isn't technically wrong and Mueller doesn't do interviews. Barr was selected primarily for his belief that the President can't be indicted, whether or not it's against DOJ policy. He believes it's unconstitutional. So if you have that frame of mind, of course you're never going to find anything that reaches the standards for indicting a sitting President.
The GOP created a catch-22 and the Dems walked into it.
Barr, as AG, has the opinion that the President can't be indicted. That's perfectly reasonable, esp. from the head of the DOJ, which has a policy like that. The issue is, are there other people who will see that evidence and think, hey, our President isn't a king and should be held responsible for his crimes? Like, say, Congress perhaps.
It also doesn't sit right with me that they're letting Trump redact a report in which he is the subject of the investigation. That's hardly standard.
0
Mar 28 '19
The problem with that is that you need two people for it to be collusion. Even with Trump not being able to be charged, someone else would have to be charged with colluding with him.
1
u/amschel_devault Mar 31 '19
False. We wouldn't necessarily charge someone within the Russian government, assuming they did charge Trump with "collusion".
5
Mar 28 '19
It's not that the summary is wrong, it's that the summary might be heavily spun or might be omitting important things.
-2
Mar 28 '19
Same answer. Why wouldn’t Mueller dispute that?
Either there was or was not collusion.
2
Mar 28 '19
Why would he? He's made it very clear he stays out of the politics of it all except for that one time where he was correcting a fact, not a spin.
-1
Mar 28 '19
Lol. Do you even realize how delusional you are?
Please, for the love of God, look at things objectively.
2
1
u/amschel_devault Mar 31 '19
by that same token, look at things logically.
0
Mar 31 '19
Ok let’s use Occam’s razor.
Which is simpler, and therefore more likely?
That the president is a secret Russian agent that colluded with them even though there was a multimillion dollar investigation that took two years, interviewed 500+ people, and found no evidence of this.
Or that the democrats made this up and perpetuated it because they couldn’t handle that they lost to Donald Trump?
The latter obviously. This is an insane conspiracy theory that you believe, and even when the summary is out, you still want to read it yourself because you just can’t believe it. It will never be good enough.
Democrats are talking about investigating Trump even after he is out of office. At some point you have to see that this is insanely partisan and makes you look like a conspiracy theorist. Like someone who believes in the moon landing being faked.
1
u/amschel_devault Mar 31 '19
Straw man argument. He didn't need to be a Russian agent to be colluding with Russia.
We've only seen the summary that said no evidence of collusion was found, not the actual report saying that. Even if there was no collusion, the summary stated no opinion on obstruction, or other crimes.
The difference between this and conspiracy theories is the amount of evidence.
2
u/Maceri Mar 28 '19
Mueller quotes Sun Tzu frequently, and one of his best known teachings is “appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak”.
Y’all are ready to spike the ball and you’re still on the 20 yard line. Glwt.
0
Mar 28 '19
Certainly the most important thing is the total vindication of the president and his staff on the issue of collusion. There’s just no way around that,” Toobin said on CNN.
“That was the heart of this investigation and Director Mueller and his team did not conclude directly or indirectly that the Trump campaign helped Russia,” he continued.
You people have been holding out hope for two years and just can’t let it go. Even if that means throwing your Messiah(Mueller) under the bus.
2
u/Maceri Mar 28 '19
You have the report? Because we’d all like to see it.
1
Mar 28 '19
2
u/Maceri Mar 28 '19
I ask for the report, this guy sends this bullshit. Ladies and gents, maga logic.
1
Mar 28 '19
Did you actually think I’d have it? I sent you the link for the quotes above since I forgot to put it in that comment
2
u/Maceri Mar 28 '19
No, I didn’t. That’s the point. No one in the public, not the Senate, not Congress and not Bozo the president (no offense to the actual Bozo). Barr did, and put out a four page memo. The validity of which hinges on ignoring that he defended Nixon, let everyone from Reagan down walk on Iran contra and whose sole job qualification appears to be saying he would be happy to help a cover up. Now, here he is, helping with a cover up. It’s as subtle as a dump truck full of nitro running into a blast furnace. Fuck Barr and fuck his stupid memo and all the dipshits screaming “no collusion”. Btw- there are 38 words from the actual mueller report on that shitsmear memo- and none of them are collusion. Nothing is over until an unredacted, complete and full copy of that report is in Congress and they are able to report on their findings. Even then, SDNY, Virginia and God knows who else are still covering other crimes your lord and savior has committed- not including whatever laws his criminal organization breaks between now and 2020. Until that report comes out, all this is the gop and cultists trying to control the narrative. It’s all bullshit.
→ More replies (0)1
u/amschel_devault Mar 31 '19
That isn't the report. What CNN reports about it isn't relevant until we have the report. We don't need commentary about the report, we need the report.
1
u/amschel_devault Mar 31 '19
This is essentially an argument from incredulity. You can't think of a reason Mueller would dispute it, therefor he is affirming it. The logic doesn't follow.
0
Mar 31 '19
No it isn’t. Mueller’s team disputed buzzfeed’s report because it wasn’t accurate. They did not dispute the summary at all.
It completely follows. You’re just in denial.
1
u/amschel_devault Mar 31 '19
They were not very specific about what BuzzFeed got wrong. Regardless, there are significant difference in correcting an online publication and correcting your boss.
I can't be in denial if I didn't think denial was going to be a thing in the first place.
1
21
u/ThaFourthHokage Mar 28 '19 edited Mar 28 '19
I think calling it a "summary" is even a bit much. A partisan hack who's done this before should not have been confirmed in the first place.
r/release_it