Is Free Speech Under Attack in this Country?

57Brave said:
why did Trump have Barr quash the Mueller Investigation ?
Pretty sure if it was a "hoax" Mueller a life long GOP would have found as much
and shut down a hopeless investigation himself,

One more question then I will leave you to your important work here,
What was it Trump was afraid of getting out ?

Might have been a hoax it might not, We won't ever really know

Ok thethe you can go back to your day job.
and I don't mean in " accounting"
Click to expand...

'Quash' the investigation? THe one that lasted for almost 3 years and resulted in nothing but dependency on foreign intelligence from unscrupulous sources? What you should really be asking is why didn't Mueller look into certain things like Misfuds entanglements with the five eyes network. You know important things and not public comments that Trump made in front of the world.

What was Trump 'afraid' of getting out? What didn't 'get out'? Who is claiming that any piece of the Mueller report was not published?
 
It is telling that its 2.18.25 and the left is still screaming about the Mueller Report.

That just shows how little they have.
 
it's funny how on 2/18/25 duffus MAGA pawns are still screaming hoax in the face of knowing what facts surround the issue.

Beginning with how comes Trump ( target of investigation) squashed investigation, still afraid to ask why

On another note,

So please go get a job where you aren't on a baseball message board 20 hours a day and take the rest of your unemployed (takers) friends to the unemployment office to look for a job.

Might even be eligible for a bi-weekly check

No promises there
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Awwww - Poor wittle 57 is mad.

He still doesn't understand the Russian Collusion 'investigation' was a hoax.
 
It’s an amazing lack of awareness he’s constantly doubling down on …. The glasses of water are glad to have him.
 
thethe said:
Awwww - Poor wittle 57 is mad.

He still doesn't understand the Russian Collusion 'investigation' was a hoax.
Click to expand...

Prove it.

You and yours had an opportunity then DJT found a hatchetman .

Mad. Not mad because I am reciting events that happened while you spout gibberish
 
57Brave said:
Prove it.

You and yours had an opportunity then DJT found a hatchetman .

Mad. Not mad because I am reciting events that happened while you spout gibberish
Click to expand...

Prove it? You are the ones who accused him of 'it' and it turned out to be nothing despite having unlimited resources for 3+ years.

You're a clown bro - Complete symbol of the left right now in its country.

I'm enjoying this front row seat.
 
57Brave said:
Prove it.

You and yours had an opportunity then DJT found a hatchetman .

Mad. Not mad because I am reciting events that happened while you spout gibberish
Click to expand...

The burden of proof is on the accuser... and you spent 3 years and millions of dollars to come up with... nothing

Between that, and all the criminal cases brought against Trump... that he didn't spend a day in prison is interesting. Either there wasn't enough evidence, or the incompetence of the Dems is staggering.

I cant think of a third option
 
Its interesting to see the moronic rabid left go back ot the OG hoax to try and stop Trump (sadly it did for most of his first term as there was no true transfer of power).

They know they have nothing. They know their message doesn't resonate with people. They know their hold on power is done for a long time.
 
sturg33 said:
The burden of proof is on the accuser... and you spent 3 years and millions of dollars to come up with... nothing

Between that, and all the criminal cases brought against Trump... that he didn't spend a day in prison is interesting. Either there wasn't enough evidence, or the incompetence of the Dems is staggering.

I cant think of a third option
Click to expand...

3) meet William Pelham Barr



Mueller investigation and report
On January 14, 2019, a day before Barr's confirmation hearing for attorney general, Barr sent written testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the eventual final Mueller report, saying "it is very important that the public and Congress be informed of the results of the special counsel's work ... For that reason, my goal will be to provide as much transparency as I can consistent with the law."[143][144]

Upon taking office, Barr refused calls to recuse himself from overseeing the Mueller investigation, despite his June 2018 memo arguing that the special counsel had no right to investigate Trump.[97][98]

On March 22, 2019, Mueller concluded his special counsel investigation and gave the final report to Barr.[145]

The four-page letter Barr sent to leaders of the House and Senate judiciary committees on March 24, 2019. It claims to describe the principal conclusions of the Special Counsel investigation.
Even before seeing the Mueller report, Barr had already decided to clear Trump of obstruction. To this end, he tasked the Office of Legal Counsel with writing a memo that would provide a pretextual justification for this decision.[146][147][148] According to federal judge Amy Berman Jackson, the Barr letter which declined to charge Trump, and a Justice Department memo purportedly containing advice to Barr that Trump should not be charged, were "being written by the very same people at the very same time". Jackson also stated that email evidence showed that the Barr letter was "the priority, and it is getting completed first" ahead of the advice memo.[149][150] The final memo was signed by Steven Engel and Ed O'Callaghan.[147][148][151]

On March 24, Barr submitted a four-page letter to Congress describing what he said were the report's principal conclusions: first, that the Special Counsel did not establish conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia's efforts to interfere with the 2016 election; and second, that the Special Counsel made no decision as to whether to prosecute Trump for obstruction of justice, quoting "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." Barr stated that the Special Counsel's decision "leaves it to" Barr to decide if Trump obstructed justice. Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein themselves concluded that the evidence "is not sufficient to establish" obstruction of justice by Trump, and made the decision not to press the charge.[152][153][154][155][156]

On March 25, Mueller reportedly wrote a letter to Barr, as described in The New York Times as "expressing his and his team's concerns that the attorney general had inadequately portrayed their conclusions".[157] In USA Today it was described that Mueller "expressed his differences with Barr".[158]

On March 27, Mueller sent Barr another letter describing his concerns of Barr's letter to Congress and the public on March 24. In it, Mueller complained that the summary "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance" of the Special Counsel's probe, adding, "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."[159] Both before and after the release of Barr's summary, Mueller repeatedly tried to get Barr to release the report's introductions and executive summaries. Mueller's March 27 letter also stated that he had earlier sent a March 25 letter to Barr.[160]

Mueller's March 27 letter prompted Barr to call Mueller on March 28. Barr clarified on the intention of his letter both in his phone call with Mueller and in another letter to Congress that his letter had not been intended to be a summary of the report, but rather a description of the principal findings of the report.[161][159]

On April 9, Barr appeared in a congressional hearing before the House. There, Representative Charlie Crist described media reports that "members of the special counsel's team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24 letter, that it does not adequately or accurately portray the [Mueller] report's findings." Crist asked Barr: "Do you know what they are referencing with that?" Barr replied: "No, I don't."[162][163] On April 10, Attorney General Barr appeared before the Senate Appropriations Committee. Senator Chris Van Hollen asked Barr regarding obstruction: "Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?" Barr replied: "I don't know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion."[162][163]

The Department of Justice released a redacted version of the special counsel's report in the morning of April 18, 2019.[164][165] After the release of the full report, fact-checkers and news outlets characterized Barr's initial letter as a deliberate mischaracterization of the Mueller Report and its conclusions.[166][167][168][169][170][171] The New York Times reported instances in which the Barr letter omitted information and quoted sentence fragments out of context in ways that significantly altered the Mueller findings, including:[166]

A sentence fragment described only one possible motive for Trump to obstruct justice, while the Mueller report listed other possible motives.
Omission of words and a full sentence that twice suggested there was knowing and complicit behavior between the Trump campaign and Russians that stopped short of coordination
Omission of language that indicated Trump could be subject to indictment after leaving office, to suggest that Trump was cleared in full
According to the Associated Press, Barr misrepresented the report in several ways, saying the report gave no indication that Congress could make a determination on obstruction of justice (the report specifically stated "that Congress may apply obstruction laws") and that "these reports are not supposed to be made public" (when DOJ regulations give the AG wide authority in releasing reports such as this one).[172] Barr falsely claimed in his summary of the report that "the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel's investigation."[173] The Washington Post fact-checker described Barr's claim as "astonishing"[167] and PolitiFact said it was "false".[173] In actuality, Trump declined to grant the Special Counsel an in-person interview, and the Special Counsel report characterized Trump's written responses to interview questions as "inadequate".[173] The report also documented numerous instances where Trump tried to either impede or end the Special Counsel investigation, analyzing each in terms of the three factors necessary for a criminal charge of obstruction.[173][174][175][failed verification]

During a press conference, Barr said Mueller's report contained "substantial evidence" that Trump was "frustrated and angered" because of his belief that the "investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks"; however, the report gave no indication that Trump's frustrations with the investigation would mitigate obstructing behavior.[160][176][177] Barr also said it would not be criminal obstruction of justice for a president to instruct a staffer to lie to investigators about the president's actions,[178] and suggested a president could legally terminate an investigation into himself if he was being "falsely accused".[179]

On May 8, 2019, the House Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to hold Barr in contempt of congress for failing to comply with a subpoena which requested the full and unredacted Mueller Report.[180] The matter then fell to the House of Representatives at-large for a contempt of Congress vote.[181] The Justice Department took the position that disclosure of the unredacted Mueller Report would require the department to violate "the law, court rules and court orders" as well as grand jury secrecy rules.[180]

During May 1, 2019, testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Barr stated he accepted Mueller's interpretation of the law that was applied in the Report. However, in a May 30 CBS News interview, Barr said he had applied his own interpretation of the law and took the position that obstruction laws cannot apply to presidents who abuse their official powers to impede an investigation for a corrupt reason. Barr elaborated: "As a matter of law ... we didn't agree with the legal analysis – a lot of the legal analysis in the report. It did not reflect the views of the department."[182][183]

In March 2020, Reggie Walton, a federal district judge originally appointed by President George W. Bush, criticized Barr's characterizations of the Mueller report as "distorted" and "misleading". Walton made his comments while presiding over a lawsuit on whether the Mueller report should be released without redactions. As Walton saw it, Barr's "lack of candor" undermined Barr's "credibility and, in turn, the department's" arguments before the court. Walton had concerns that Barr may have made a "calculated attempt to influence public discourse" in favor of President Trump by establishing "a one-sided narrative" about the report contrary to the report's findings. Walton questioned if the report's redactions were actually "self-serving" to avoid conflict with Barr's statements, and if the Justice Department used "post-hoc rationalizations" to defend Barr.[184][185] Kerri Kupec, the DOJ's spokesperson, said Walton's criticisms of Barr "were contrary to the facts" as the redactions were made by DOJ attorneys after they consulted Mueller's team, prosecutors, and other officials.[186] On September 3, Walton ruled that the redaction of FBI reports of witness interviews was proper.[187]

The March 24, 2019 Office of Legal Counsel memo.
In May 2021, federal judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that a March 24, 2019 Department of Justice memo[188] must be published without redactions.[189] Previously in April 2019, Barr said that his decision to not charge Trump was made "in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other department lawyers". In this lawsuit, the Department of Justice argued that since Barr relied on the advice of this memo to make his decision, this memo should not be published unredacted. Jackson rejected this argument after reviewing the unredacted memo, stating that Barr could not have made the decision on the memo's advice, because the unredacted memo showed that the decision had already been made not to charge Trump. In addition, according to Jackson, the unredacted memo indicated that Barr did not have legitimate authority to make a prosecution decision regarding Trump. Jackson concluded that Barr had been "disingenuous" to Congress in 2019, and that the Department of Justice had been "disingenuous to this court" regarding their "decision-making process"
////////

you see, this all happened
 
Last edited by a moderator:
bafkreifrzoczyzrd6rmara3yhqdochl3ijdvklixvcica2eih5276brkru@jpeg
 
Garmel said:
Access isn't the same as freedom of speech.

[tw]1894154490162401716[/tw]
Click to expand...

They are still excluding a major news outlet from asking them questions about their governance because they won’t use the Administration’s preferred name for an international body of water. I’m not so much outraged as I am perplexed by how dumb it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top