Tag Archives: collusion

national news

Mueller report release will produce ‘Mother of Twitter Tirades’

OK, here’s what I believe will happen when Attorney General William Barr releases the redacted version of Robert Mueller’s report on whether Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with Russians and/or obstructed justice.

Barr will have his press conference in the morning as the report of the special counsel becomes known. He’ll answer questions from reporters gathered in front of him. There likely will be some sparring between the AG and media representatives. Hey, it happens. Barr is used to it; this ain’t his first slugfest.

And then . . .

The president is going to launch The Mother of Twitter Tirades. Even if what we see in the redacted version of Mueller’s findings, we’re going to read a lot of tweets from Trump. He’ll blast the “witch hunt.” He’ll repeat the “no collusion” mantra until his fingers fall off.

However, if the redacted report reveals something else, such as evidence that needs even more congressional inquiry, then we’re he will blast away on that matter.

Whatever the nation learns from the redacted report is going to result in a tirade that likely will end all tirades from the president.

Until something else happens that sets him off.

Yes, this is how Donald John Trump, the president of the United States, intends to “make America great again.”

Hold on, folks. It won’t be pretty.

national news

Hope battles fear as AG Barr preps to release report

A big day is on tap this week.

Thursday is when Attorney General William Barr is going to release what many of us hope is a healthy portion of what special counsel Robert Mueller has concluded about Donald Trump’s election as president of the United States.

It won’t be the full report. We aren’t going to see all of it. Barr is going to keep some of it secret.

I am facing a battle between my hope and my fear over what the AG is going to release.

Barr already has written that four-page summary of what Mueller concluded. The AG says Mueller found no “collusion” between Trump’s campaign and Russians who hacked into our electoral system; he also says Mueller reached no conclusion about obstruction of justice, but said Mueller didn’t have enough to file a criminal complaint.

Do you believe the AG’s version of what Mueller concluded?

I don’t either. Not entirely. That’s why I want to see the whole thing. It’s also why I believe we should demand to see all of it.

My hope would be that the AG would release as much of it as humanly possible, keeping national security secrets from public view. I get the reason to withhold that information.

Still, I believe it is imperative that the public — which paid for this 22-month-long investigation — would see the evidence that Mueller collected during that probe, that we would be allowed to determine for ourselves whether Mueller made the right call.

My fear presents another set of concerns. It revolves around how much Barr is going to redact, keep from our eyes. It also concerns me that Congress, particularly Democrats who control the House, are going to be so enraged that they will subpoena witnesses left and right to committee hearing rooms. My fear also nags me with the feeling that Barr is consciously withholding more than he should because he wants to shield the president from prying eyes, such as yours and mine.

Yep. Thursday is going to be a big day. I’m on pins and needles.

national news

Not surprised, but still disappointed in AG Barr

Attorney General William Barr’s apparent decision to release a significantly redacted version of the Robert Mueller report to the nation is not surprising. However, the attorney general is about to disappoint me greatly.

Mueller’s findings on the issue of whether Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign colluded with Russians who attacked our electoral system reportedly contain mountains of evidence showing how the special counsel reached his conclusion. He said Trump didn’t conspire to collude with the Russians.

He also said, according to Barr, that he didn’t “exonerate” the president on obstruction of justice questions.

Barr reportedly is set to release Mueller’s report, but it is likely to contained large portions that will be blocked from public view.

The disappointment is well-known to readers of this blog. I want to see as much of the Mueller report as possible. Barr, though, appears intent on keeping secret matters that go beyond issues of national security and grand jury testimony. He wants to protect individuals who were “peripheral” to the investigation. How does he make that call?

My disappointment rests in my belief that Barr would be more transparent in releasing his findings. I have expressed my belief that he is an upstanding individual. It has been shaken by what he’s reportedly about to do.

I guess I placed too much faith in the attorney general initially. When we learned of his memo criticizing Mueller’s investigation — which many have said was an “audition” for his appointment as AG — I should have snapped to the reality of what he stated.

As I have pondered what he said those many weeks ago, I can say today that it doesn’t surprise me that he might hide much of the evidence that shows how Mueller reached his conclusions about the president and his campaign.

I wanted the attorney general to prove me wrong.

Silly me.

national news

If there’s nothing there, release the report . . . now!

If there’s no evidence of “collusion” or “obstruction of justice” in that well-chronicled — but still-unknown — report from special counsel Robert Mueller, then why is Attorney General William Barr dragging his feet in releasing it to the public?

Hey, I have to ask, you know?

Mueller finished his exhaustive probe into whether the Russians colluded with Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016. Barr said Mueller came up empty. No collusion. Got it! Check!

Obstruction is another matter. Barr said Mueller did not “exonerate” Trump, but found nothing on which to file a criminal complaint.

So, there you have it — according to the attorney general.

Democrats in Congress want the full report released. Barr said he intends to block some of it. Maybe much of it. The public won’t see the whole thing, if Barr gets his way.

Donald Trump keeps swaying in the breeze. He says “release it.” Then he waffles. Back and forth.

I am going to presume the president doesn’t know what Mueller found per the obstruction matter. I also am being forced to presume — at least until it’s proven otherwise — that Barr has concluded there may be more than meets the naked eye in that Mueller report.

Trump trumpets “no collusion, total exoneration, witch hunt!” If so, then what in the world is the holdup here?

Gosh, I’m inclined to believe that New York Times report that some of Mueller’s legal eagles are unhappy with the way Barr presented their findings, which likely might explain a whole lot about the delay in getting this report released to the public that deserves to see it in its entirety.

They told the NY Times that Barr soft-pedaled the findings in his four-page summary and that there’s more in there that implicates Donald Trump in something not yet explained.

Can we get it explained? Immediately?

national news

Wishing that AG Barr rises to occasion

You may choose to believe this . . . or you might choose to disbelieve it. I don’t care. I’ll offer this anyway.

I really want to believe that Attorney General William Barr takes seriously the oath to which he swore when he vowed to uphold the rule of law and to defend the U.S. Constitution.

My hope is being strained almost to the point of snapping.

The report from The New York Times from part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s legal team that Barr might have shaded the team’s work is most disturbing.

The Times reports that some of Mueller’s team have complained that Barr’s four-page summary of the 22-month investigation into whether Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with Russians doesn’t adequately express the team’s view of what it found. They are saying that Barr is soft-pedaling some of the more troubling aspects the conclusions drawn.

This does force me to join others in wondering whether Barr is more loyal to the president than he is to the law. The oath he took was not to pledge loyalty to Donald Trump. He put his hand on a Bible and swore in the name of God Almighty that he would be faithful to the law. Isn’t that what all our federal officials pledge?

My hope when the president nominated Barr to be AG after he fired Jeff Sessions only because Sessions did what was proper — which was to recuse himself from the Russia probe — was that Barr would emerge as a grownup, as a serious public servant.

I still want to believe that’s the case. He served as AG under a previous Republican president, George H.W. Bush. He is a known quantity. Barr possesses a first-rate legal mind.

Did he, though, “audition” for the AG’s job with that memo declaring that the president couldn’t be prosecuted for any crime because he is the president? 

I do not want to believe that.

The NY Times, though, has cast serious doubt on all of that with the report from members of Mueller’s team that the AG has, um, shaded their findings to protect the president.

Say it ain’t so, Bill. More than that, prove it ain’t so. Release the full report to the public.

national news

What? AG Barr hid actual findings from us? Really?

Holy crap!

That’s my initial reaction to  a New York Times report that some members of special counsel Robert Mueller’s team are unhappy with the way Attorney General William Barr characterized the team’s findings on The Russia Thing, on “collusion” and on “obstruction of justice.”

Good ever-lovin’ grief, man!

I maintain a flickering semblance of faith in William Barr. It’s in danger of going out.

Mueller and his team concluded 22 months of investigation into whether Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with Russians. Mueller handed his findings over to Barr, who then issued a four-page summary of what he said was Mueller’s report.

Well, it turns out that the AG might not have given us the straight scoop on what Mueller concluded. The NY Times is reporting that some of Mueller’s investigative team believes the report is more damaging to Trump than Barr has let on.

Oh, my.

Barr is facing deep trouble

We need to see the report. We need to read it for ourselves. William Barr should keep some of it secret, but not much of it. I concede that national security matters are off limits.

But what in the name of juris prudence did Mueller conclude? How did he reach that conclusion? And is the attorney general running interference for the president of the United States? Is he more loyal to Donald Trump than he is to the rule of law?

Is it any wonder that Donald Trump hates the NY Times? Of course not! The Times and other media around the country are doing their job. They are telling us what we need to know.

I’ll add just this caveat: I would feel even better about the veracity of what the investigators have told the NY Times if we would hear from Robert Mueller himself.

However, this bit of information that has smashed through the current news cycle gives me grave concern about the attorney general and his commitment to telling us the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

national news

Mr. POTUS, if there’s nothing to hide, then let us see the report

I cannot understand in the least the president’s resistance to releasing special counsel Robert Mueller’s report to the public.

Donald Trump says there’s “no collusion, no obstruction.” There’s “nothing there,” he says. There’s no there . . . there.

But then in the very next breath he said today that Democrats’ insistence on seeing the full report is a “disgrace.” He doesn’t want the report released, or so it now appears. He is bristling at House Judiciary Committee members’ scheduled vote Wednesday to force the release of the full Mueller report into alleged “collusion” with the Russians.

If there’s nothing in it, Mr. President, then just let Attorney General William Barr release the full report and let Americans — such as me and millions of others of us — determine for ourselves whether what you say is the truth.

national news

No, Mr. POTUS: Mueller hasn’t ‘disappeared’

1 Comment

“Robert Mueller was a God-like figure to the Democrats, until he ruled No Collusion in the long awaited $30,000,000 Mueller Report. Now the Dems don’t even acknowledge his name, have become totally unhinged, and would like to through the whole process again. It won’t happen!”

OK, Mr. President. Let’s chill out for a moment.

This Twitter message you fired off this morning is, shall we say, another lie. But that’s not news, given that you lie whenever your lips move.

I lean toward the Democrats. I have been more than willing to mention Robert Mueller’s name whenever possible. I happen to think much more of him than I do of you.

I also have declared my intention to accept whatever findings Mueller would reach as it regarded allegations of collusion. He has ruled that you and your 2016 presidential campaign didn’t conspire to collude with Russians who attacked our election system.

But he surely has recognized that the Russkies did it. He joins your national security team — which you continue to disparage — in saying that Vladimir Putin’s government sought to influence the election outcome. Putin wanted you elected over Hillary Clinton. He got his wish.

As for Mueller, I must remind you that he made no conclusion about obstruction of justice. At least that is what Attorney General William Barr told us.

You also ought to avoid the “unhinged” talk, Mr. President. If anyone has spiraled out of control over the past couple of years, it’s you.

How about shutting your trap until we see the entire report that Mueller plopped on AG Barr’s lap?

I don’t know why I bother mentioning this to you, given that you have zero shame, zero self-awareness, zero character, zero redeeming qualities that commend you for the office you currently occupy.

I just can’t help myself.

national news

Obstruction of justice remains an open question

I get that special counsel Robert Mueller III has declined to declare that Donald Trump obstructed justice in the search for what happened when Russian attacked our electoral system in 2016.

I have pledged to accept the special counsel’s findings. And I do!

But . . . Americans need to see what made him make that determination. We need to be able to assess for ourselves why Mueller, a good man and a meticulous prosecutor, concluded that there was insufficient evidence to make a formal complaint that he obstructed justice.

Let’s look at what we know so far.

  • The president sought a statement of loyalty from former FBI director James Comey; he didn’t get it. He suggested that Comey should let go of his investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn; Comey didn’t swallow that bait, either. He then fired Comey.
  • Trump told NBC-TV’s Lester Holt that he fired Comey because of “the Russia thing.”
  • POTUS welcomed Russian diplomatic officials into the White House and told them in the Oval Office that firing Comey had removed the Russia matter from the table; he hurled assorted epithets at Comey.

I don’t know how one defines “obstruction of justice.” I certainly don’t know how Robert Mueller defines it, either.

We do know that Mueller — according to Attorney General William Barr — has not “exonerated” Trump from any obstruction of justice accusation. He didn’t have enough evidence, again according to the AG, to accuse him formally, either.

We need to see the special counsel’s findings for ourselves.

What have a record already of Trump saying things that suggest obstruction of justice. It well might fall on Congress ultimately to decide whether he intended to do that very thing when he canned the FBI director.

Show us the report, Mr. Attorney General.

International news

Russia probe was a ‘disgrace’? What about the Russian attack?

Donald Trump has been mounting a full-throated, frontal assault on the investigation into The Russia Thing by special counsel Robert Mueller III.

Yes, the president is attacking the probe as a “witch hunt,” and a “disgrace to our country.” Mueller reportedly concluded that the Trump presidential campaign did not “collude” with Russian goons who attacked our electoral system. It’s an open question on the issue of obstruction of justice.

But Trump keeps declaring he received “total exoneration” while piling on and on and on over Mueller’s exhaustive investigation.

I am left to wonder: Why doesn’t the president declare the Russian interference in our electoral process to be a “disgrace” to the nation? Where is the president’s alarm that the Russians were able and willing — according to Mueller — hack into our election data bases and seek to distribute false information about Hillary Clinton? Isn’t that what one would call “fake news”?

Oh, and then the Russians actually did launch their attack on the same day that candidate Donald Trump invited them to look for those missing e-mails that the Clinton team reportedly trashed. Isn’t that at least as much of a national “disgrace” as the Russian attack in the first place?

Trump’s disgraceful misrepresentation of “disgraceful” conduct continues to demonstrate fully to me that the man is unfit for public office of any sort, let alone as the president of the United States.

He impugns the integrity of Mueller, a former FBI director, a decorated Vietnam War combat veteran and a man known for meticulous preparation in the performance of his legal duties.

The “national disgrace” occurred not with the probe. It occurred when the Russians interfered in our cherished electoral system.

Where is the condemnation of that, Mr. President?