Clearly Scott Stantis wrote this ’toon weeks ago. Clearly out of date now.
NO! We have NOT seen any evidence that there was “no collusion” or “no obstruction.”
On the contrary, all we have is a four-page summary and a promise to release Barr’s own EDITED version with any damaging material “redacted.”
While some material may not be appropriate for the general public, congressional committees routinely receive highly sensitive material under seal, including national security secrets far more sensitive than anything in the Mueller report. There is NO VALID REASON that this information cannot be provided to congress other than a cover up.
Barr: the report says “no conspiracy” and “no obstruction” but you can’t see the actual report.
Then Mueller’s own staff objects and says that they DID find material unfavorable to the president, but it did not rise to the level of a criminal indictment EITHER because there was collusion and wrongdoing that did not rise to the level of an actual criminal indictment OR because of a DOJ internal rule (not a law, not in the Constitution, just an internal memo) that prohibits an indictment so nothing could rise to such a level given that rule.
The only way we can know is RELEASE THE FULL MUELLER REPORT.
Actually, Barr’s summary said “the Russian Government.” That’s very narrow, and I think intentionally so.
We know for a fact that Trump’s campaign manager was working with Ukrainians who were allied with Russia and was funneling them information during the campaign. But that’s not technically “the Russian Government.”
We know for a fact that Trump’s son met with Russian operatives who had promised dirt on Hillary Clinton, and we know that Trump knew about it, and lied about it. But that’s not technically “the Russian Government.”
We also know that both Trump’s National Security Advisor and his Foreign Policy Advisor lied to the FBI about Russian Contacts.
And now we find out that Mueller’s team produced their OWN summary, but Barr scuttled it and replaced it with his own, even though he could not possibly have read the entire 400-page report. Mueller’s team – which up to now has been tight as a drum – says that Barr mischaracterized their work.And now they are fighting to keep Congress from seeing the whole report. Why would they do that? If the report exonerates Trump, wouldn’t making the report public be very good for him and very bad for the Democrats?
Before he got the job, Barr wrote a memorandum saying “Mueller should not be permitted to demand that the President submit to interrogation about alleged obstruction.” (https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/549-june-2018-barr-memo-to-doj-mue/b4c05e39318dd2d136b3/optimized/full.pdf#page=1) That’s why Trump hired him – because he OPPOSED Mueller’s investigation, and was willing to help cover up wrongdoing.
What no one seems to understand is that Mueller has been working for Trump the whole time. Mueller got rid of Trumps enemies on unrelated inditments then cleared him of all wrong doing. Handing Trump the 2020 election. Lets keep an eye on Muellers lifestyle for the next couple years
Thing is…everyone keeps insisting on looking at this through a normal framework. Trump has no knowledge of or interest in legalities on any level. All he knows is he wants to do business with anyone and everyone for the sole purpose of enriching himself with the sole aim of amassing yet more money and buying lawyers to figure out how to keep him out of trouble when he ignorantly runs afoul of law. The Presidency is of use to him only as a way to bully his way to more money, with the extra perk of taking out his four-year-old tantrums on anyone who annoys him and being able to think of himself as FINALLY being where he always belonged: King of the world.
Haven’t seen the Mueller report yet, we’ve just seen the Barr memo.
Trump has blocked sanctions against Russia approved by a REPUBLICAN Congress. Trump has alienated long-term U.S. allies in favor of cozying up to Russia and NK. Trump gave Israeli intelligence info to Russia, destroys all notes of private meetings with Russia and tells Russian BS stories about their involvement in the Middle East.
Stop talking about collusion; let’s start talking about treason.
I had an interesting discussion with an assistant attorney general I assisted a few years back about how evidence proves something, lack of evidence does not disprove it. People tend to think in black-and-white in a grey world. Just because no evidence has been found to prove collusion (which is not a crime; conspiracy is) that does not mean it didn’t happen. (I’ve also gotten confused looks from people who would say someone who stood trial had been found innocent, when I point out the verdict was “not guilty” of the specific charges that had been brought against the defendant. Not the same thing as innocent.)
DD Wiz over 5 years ago
Clearly Scott Stantis wrote this ’toon weeks ago. Clearly out of date now.
NO! We have NOT seen any evidence that there was “no collusion” or “no obstruction.”
On the contrary, all we have is a four-page summary and a promise to release Barr’s own EDITED version with any damaging material “redacted.”
While some material may not be appropriate for the general public, congressional committees routinely receive highly sensitive material under seal, including national security secrets far more sensitive than anything in the Mueller report. There is NO VALID REASON that this information cannot be provided to congress other than a cover up.
Barr: the report says “no conspiracy” and “no obstruction” but you can’t see the actual report.
Then Mueller’s own staff objects and says that they DID find material unfavorable to the president, but it did not rise to the level of a criminal indictment EITHER because there was collusion and wrongdoing that did not rise to the level of an actual criminal indictment OR because of a DOJ internal rule (not a law, not in the Constitution, just an internal memo) that prohibits an indictment so nothing could rise to such a level given that rule.
The only way we can know is RELEASE THE FULL MUELLER REPORT.
kaffekup over 5 years ago
Low-hanging fruit, Scott.
Ignatz Premium Member over 5 years ago
Actually, Barr’s summary said “the Russian Government.” That’s very narrow, and I think intentionally so.
We know for a fact that Trump’s campaign manager was working with Ukrainians who were allied with Russia and was funneling them information during the campaign. But that’s not technically “the Russian Government.”
We know for a fact that Trump’s son met with Russian operatives who had promised dirt on Hillary Clinton, and we know that Trump knew about it, and lied about it. But that’s not technically “the Russian Government.”
We also know that both Trump’s National Security Advisor and his Foreign Policy Advisor lied to the FBI about Russian Contacts.
And now we find out that Mueller’s team produced their OWN summary, but Barr scuttled it and replaced it with his own, even though he could not possibly have read the entire 400-page report. Mueller’s team – which up to now has been tight as a drum – says that Barr mischaracterized their work.And now they are fighting to keep Congress from seeing the whole report. Why would they do that? If the report exonerates Trump, wouldn’t making the report public be very good for him and very bad for the Democrats?
Before he got the job, Barr wrote a memorandum saying “Mueller should not be permitted to demand that the President submit to interrogation about alleged obstruction.” (https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/549-june-2018-barr-memo-to-doj-mue/b4c05e39318dd2d136b3/optimized/full.pdf#page=1) That’s why Trump hired him – because he OPPOSED Mueller’s investigation, and was willing to help cover up wrongdoing.
Kip W over 5 years ago
Can we quote you on this in, say, three weeks, Mr. Stantis?
helowolf over 5 years ago
No evidence, except from Mueller who said “no collusion”.
BeniHanna6 Premium Member over 5 years ago
Yeah but……
RobinHood over 5 years ago
What no one seems to understand is that Mueller has been working for Trump the whole time. Mueller got rid of Trumps enemies on unrelated inditments then cleared him of all wrong doing. Handing Trump the 2020 election. Lets keep an eye on Muellers lifestyle for the next couple years
dogday Premium Member over 5 years ago
Thing is…everyone keeps insisting on looking at this through a normal framework. Trump has no knowledge of or interest in legalities on any level. All he knows is he wants to do business with anyone and everyone for the sole purpose of enriching himself with the sole aim of amassing yet more money and buying lawyers to figure out how to keep him out of trouble when he ignorantly runs afoul of law. The Presidency is of use to him only as a way to bully his way to more money, with the extra perk of taking out his four-year-old tantrums on anyone who annoys him and being able to think of himself as FINALLY being where he always belonged: King of the world.
walkingmancomics over 5 years ago
No exoneration, either. Why does that always seem to get forgot [sic]?
Nantucket Premium Member over 5 years ago
Haven’t seen the Mueller report yet, we’ve just seen the Barr memo.
Trump has blocked sanctions against Russia approved by a REPUBLICAN Congress. Trump has alienated long-term U.S. allies in favor of cozying up to Russia and NK. Trump gave Israeli intelligence info to Russia, destroys all notes of private meetings with Russia and tells Russian BS stories about their involvement in the Middle East.
Stop talking about collusion; let’s start talking about treason.
adrianrune over 5 years ago
I had an interesting discussion with an assistant attorney general I assisted a few years back about how evidence proves something, lack of evidence does not disprove it. People tend to think in black-and-white in a grey world. Just because no evidence has been found to prove collusion (which is not a crime; conspiracy is) that does not mean it didn’t happen. (I’ve also gotten confused looks from people who would say someone who stood trial had been found innocent, when I point out the verdict was “not guilty” of the specific charges that had been brought against the defendant. Not the same thing as innocent.)