Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, July 24, 2019

You can add one more name to the list of prominent government officials who haven't read the Mueller report: FBI Director Christopher Wray. "I've -- I've reviewed it, I wouldn't say I've read every single word," the director told Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) when asked if he'd read the 448-page document made public this spring.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

#12

Ridiculous. Mueller had 40 FBI agents help conduct the investigation. He should know what they found. Anything less than that is professional dereliction of duty. How is this not obvious to you?

?...walk it back again, Jeffy

#1 | Posted by bocaink at 2019-07-24 03:51 PM | Reply

Mueller had 40 FBI agents help conduct the investigation. He should know what they found. Anything less than that is professional dereliction of duty.

Agree, did you watch Mueller? Mueller, should have known what they found. ...

I mean if Mueller didn't read his own report why should anyone else.

#2 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-07-24 10:41 PM | Reply

14- WTF flag

Mueller read the Mueller report. He referred to the report because he wrote it and was being cautious to avoid thing still under investigation and to avoid being caught up in semantics...especially since the Trumptards went full discredit mode since they obviously didn't read it.

#3 | Posted by bocaink at 2019-07-24 10:49 PM | Reply

A sham investigation justified by campaign dirty tricks. Why waste the time reading that dreck?

#4 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-07-24 11:04 PM | Reply

A sham investigation justified by campaign dirty tricks. Why waste the time reading that dreck?

#16 | POSTED BY anti-American POS VISITOR

The truth has an anti-GOnP bias!
Deal with it!

#5 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-07-25 06:31 AM | Reply

Apparently Mueller hasn't read it either.

#6 | Posted by sawdust at 2019-07-25 07:04 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Why would he read it? He's a partisan hack.

#7 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-07-25 07:06 AM | Reply

Ridiculous. Mueller had 40 FBI agents help conduct the investigation. He should know what they found. Anything less than that is professional dereliction of duty. How is this not obvious to you?
?...walk it back again, Jeffy

#13 | POSTED BY BOCAINK

None of which was under his purview.

Your hatred of all things Trump is clouding your judgement here.

Mueller didn't report to Wray, he reported to Rosenstein. His report wasn't crafted for the FBI, it was crafted for the DOJ.

That report had ZERO to do with his job as head of the FBI.

#8 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-25 09:51 AM | Reply

I believe you are wrong, Jeff. He is head of FBI. Trump has viciously attacked FBI, CIA, DOJ, et.al.

It is his responsibility to research the issues involved in the Trump attacks upon his department. There is no plausible excuse in which that necessary research doesn't include a close examination of the report.

Having not read the report, has become a Republican partisan badge of blind (by premeditated choice) fealty to Trump. To deny, even the possible legitimacy of the investigation, to the point of refusing to read it, Wray, Republican Legislators,and the Republicans here who snipe about a report they have not read, is an obvious 'Hear no evil, see no evil speak no evil' Republican Political mandate.

He, they and perhaps you, are turning your back on reality as a political consideration to a man, not the office, and not the country.

#9 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2019-07-25 10:45 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#21

This Jeff. Or otherwise put, you can never win an argument with an idiot.

#10 | Posted by bocaink at 2019-07-25 11:12 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

#21 "This" nothing.

You guys are making a stupid argument out of blind Trump hatred. Nothing more.

There is no linear logic in OWS' post.

Plus, given its outsized coverage, anybody who even remotely pays attention to the news has a pretty decent layman's understanding of what is in the report.

#11 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-25 11:14 AM | Reply

Joe Biden admits he hasn't read the full report.

Film at 11.

#12 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-07-25 11:18 AM | Reply

#23

Do me this one favor. Put your fingers in your ears and scream "LALALALALALALALA" as loud as you can until I reply to your next ostrich head retort.

#13 | Posted by bocaink at 2019-07-25 11:27 AM | Reply

The report has NOTHING to do with the job he's tasked to perform. Nothing. This new "bombshell" is nothing more than throwing feces at a wall and praying it sticks.

#14 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-25 11:27 AM | Reply

#25 You'd better go hide in your bunker. MAGA gangs are roving the streets of Ann Arbor and you could be their next victim.

#15 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-25 11:28 AM | Reply

"Plus, given its outsized coverage, anybody who even remotely pays attention to the news has a pretty decent layman's understanding of what is in the report."

Baloney. Hearing Mueller say that he agreed with the statement that "if anyone else had done the same things they would be charged with a crime," is a thought most Americans had not yet had.

#16 | Posted by danni at 2019-07-25 11:32 AM | Reply

#26-27. You don't realize how idiotic you look with your fingers in your ear, but these two posts are about the literary equivalent.

Maybe if you use MORE CAPS, YOU WILL BE MORE RIGHT.

#17 | Posted by bocaink at 2019-07-25 11:35 AM | Reply

#29 When the ONLY thing you have is ad hominem....

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-25 11:43 AM | Reply

#24 Start a thread about it Whataboutullidan. I'm sure it will be fascinating.

I haven't read 60 percent of it either.

I also didn't have 40 employees assigned to it, nor did Joe Biden. Nor is Joe Biden involved in the report or investigation. Not that he shouldn't have read it if he is running for president. I'm not defending him in CAPS about it.

#19 | Posted by bocaink at 2019-07-25 11:44 AM | Reply

I'm done with you on this thread, Bocaink.

I'm not interested in a flame war with someone taking a moronic position.

#20 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-25 11:44 AM | Reply

I'll bet Pelosi has read the report, and has a team that has scoured the report with microscopes.

And yet, she's the one telling everyone to slow down. Listen to your Grandma.

#21 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-07-25 11:47 AM | Reply

#29

There's the self-retort I was looking for.

See #27 for Hominem, Ad.

Was that a sniffle?

#22 | Posted by bocaink at 2019-07-25 11:47 AM | Reply

#32

Definitely a sniffle.

#23 | Posted by bocaink at 2019-07-25 11:48 AM | Reply

---I'll bet Pelosi has read the report, and has a team that has scoured the report with microscopes.

Pelosi's team in action.

www.texasmonthly.com

#24 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-07-25 11:56 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

#33

She's wrong, we should have already impeached because that is Congress's responsibility. Yesterday was the last shot realistically and it's not gonna happen because if Mueller won't recommend it in dumbed down Sheeple language, it's not gonna be popular enough of an option. We are stuck with her plan. She is also derelict in duty. But hopefully we can convert, or let Trump unconvert enough cultists to save Western Civilization as we know it by next year.

Thanks for all that help in saving Western Civilization, Nulli. You've really been a trooper there.

#25 | Posted by bocaink at 2019-07-25 12:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Err Sheeple I mean, and Nulli. Hard to tell you two apart the way you wear the same clothes, and hold hands and all that.

#26 | Posted by bocaink at 2019-07-25 12:04 PM | Reply

#29
There's the self-retort I was looking for.
See #27 for Hominem, Ad.
Was that a sniffle?

#34 | POSTED BY BOCAINK

If you knew how to read. I'll put the pertinent part in bold:

#29 When the ONLY thing you have is ad hominem....

#30 | POSTED BY JEFFJ


Yeah, after taking some shots I will eventually hit back. You have yet to refute (because you can't) what I've actually said, which is why you are lashing out.

#27 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-25 12:58 PM | Reply

My point has been, despite your proclamation, Wray should definitely know what's in the report because the conduct of 40 employees, whose work the Republicans tried like hell to discredit yesterday (remember?) is being evaluated and is essential for the credibility of the most important investigation since 9/11. In many ways, the integrity of the American electoral system is on the line, Jeff. There is nothing confusing or obtuse about this. Just your sad little head in the sand.

Now walk away like you said you would.

#28 | Posted by bocaink at 2019-07-25 01:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If Trump is not impeached, the precedent is established that there are NO laws binding on presidents or presidential candidates. You can be impeached for lying about a consensual BJ (if you're in the wrong party), but not for subverting an election with the help of a foreign adversary and then covering it up. Impeachment is DEAD as a constitutional process. So much for the rule of law.

#29 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-07-25 02:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#41 Yep, if you cheat your way into the presidency, once you become president no one will hold you accountable. How convenient.

Setting aside the issue of collusion, the way I see it is: If Democrats really think Trump obstructed justice, they have no choice but to impeach him.

#30 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-07-25 02:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Impeachment is DEAD as a constitutional process. So much for the rule of law.

#41 | POSTED BY WHODAMAN

Only 3 presidents have ever been impeached and none of them were removed, although Nixon would have been had he not resigned.

If you look to history, some past presidents have had massive scandals yet weren't impeached.

It's a historically-rare act and it's certainly not DEAD by any stretch.

The best way to remove a corrupt president is at the ballot box.

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-25 02:31 PM | Reply

BTW, Wray needs to read the report if for no other reason than he is ultimately responsible for the CI investigation that has spun out from Mueller's work. That he hasn't read it, is irresponsible to the point of negligence and a dereliction of duty.

#32 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-07-25 02:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

BTW, Wray needs to read the report if for no other reason than he is ultimately responsible for the CI investigation that has spun out from Mueller's work. That he hasn't read it, is irresponsible to the point of negligence and a dereliction of duty.

#44 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

The CI investigation?

#33 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-25 02:32 PM | Reply

The FBI's counter-intelligence investigation Mueller referred to yesterday.

#34 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-07-25 02:33 PM | Reply

The FBI's Trump-Russia Investigation Continues

newrepublic.com

Mueller Tells Congress: FBI ‘Currently' Looking Into Issues of Trump Team Blackmail

www.thedailybeast.com

#35 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-07-25 02:37 PM | Reply

Gal,

If the FBI is currently investigating Team Trump on matters that arose out of the Mueller report then yes, I would agree that Wray should read the report.

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-25 02:59 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#47 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

You're inflating the importance of those articles, Gal.

It's about Flynn...it's clickbait.

#37 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-07-25 03:00 PM | Reply

Not just Flynn:

Robert Mueller hinted at the existence of an ongoing FBI counterintelligence investigations stemming from his inquiry into Russian election interference and possible Trump campaign involvement in 2016, although the former special counsel was sparse on details.

Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi brought up how earlier in the day Mueller described his report as "detailing a criminal investigation" and Mueller agreed with his characterization. The Democrat from Illinois said "since it was outside the purview of your investigation, your report did not reach counterintelligence conclusions regarding the subject matter of your report."

"That's true," Mueller replied.

"For instance, since it was outside your purview, your report did not reach counterintelligence conclusions regarding any Trump administration officials who might potentially be vulnerable to compromise or blackmail by Russia, correct?" Krishnamoorthi asked.

Mueller indicated those determinations were likely made by the FBI and did not make it into his report because "we advert to the counterintelligence goals of our investigation which were secondary to any criminal wrongdoing that we could find."


www.washingtonexaminer.com

#38 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-07-25 03:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Flynn was just one example; Trump was another:

During his five minutes of quiestioning, Krishnamoorthi also pressed Mueller about possible counterintelligence problems related to actions that Trump himself had taken, pointing out that the only part of the report dealing with Trump's financial dealings in Russia was the section on a prospective Trump Tower Moscow project. "Since it was outside your purview, your report does not address the question of whether Russian oligarchs engaged in money laundering through any of the president's businesses, correct?" he asked.

Mueller agreed... .

"As you noted in Volume II of your report, Donald Trump repeated five times in one press conference, Mr. Mueller, I 2016, ‘I have nothing to do with Russia.'" Krishnamoorthi said. "Of course, Michael Cohen said Donald Trump was not being truthful, because at this time Trump was attempting to build Trump Tower Moscow."

"Your report does not address whether Donald Trump was compromised in any way because of any potential false statements that he made about Trump Tower Moscow, correct?" Krishnamoorthi asked.

Mueller said, "That's right."

#39 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-07-25 03:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

From Mueller's opening statement:

I understand that this Committee has a unique jurisdiction, and that you are interested in further understanding the counter-intelligence implications of our investigation.

So let me say a word about how we handled the potential impact of our investigation on counter-intelligence matters.

As we explain in our report, the Special Counsel regulations effectively gave me the role of a U.S. Attorney. As a result, we structured our investigation around evidence for possible use in prosecution of federal crimes. We did not reach what you would call "counter-intelligence conclusions."

We did, however, set up processes in the office to identify and pass counter-intelligence information onto the FBI.

Members of our office periodically briefed the FBI about counter-intelligence information. In addition, there were agents and analysts from the FBI who were not on our team, but whose job it was to identify counter-intelligence information in our files and disseminate that information to the FBI.

For these reasons, questions about what the FBI has done with the counter-intelligence information obtained from our investigation should be directed to the FBI.


www.politico.com

Maybe Wray sat in on those briefings. That would have kept him appropriately in the loop.

#40 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-07-25 04:10 PM | Reply

The best way to remove a corrupt president is at the ballot box.

#43 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

So if the president commits murder in plain sight on inauguration day, he can't be arrested or prosecuted and he will remain president for 4 years (or maybe 8)? If elections were the only way to remove the president, what's the point of the impeachment clause or, for that matter, the rest of the Constitution?

"A republic, if you can keep it"

-- B. Franklin

#41 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-07-25 04:30 PM | Reply

Murder in plain sight you are using as an equivalence for corruption?

Did Snoofy pirate your account?

#42 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-25 04:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The best way to remove a corrupt president is at the ballot box.
#43 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

The whole point of the Electoral College is to prevent a corrupt individual from becoming President in the first place.
At some point you might think about acknowledging that our democracy has failed to do that.

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-25 04:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Only 3 presidents have ever been impeached and none of them were removed, although Nixon would have been had he not resigned."

Second Amendment remedies are much more successful at removing Presidents.

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-25 04:51 PM | Reply

"Murder in plain sight you are using as an equivalence for corruption?"

It's fitting for a President who can shoot a man on Fifth Avenue and not lose any supporters.
But it doesn't matter. It's just an example.

Equivalence aside, given the DOJ policy to not indict the President, what should happen after murder in plain sight? Impeachment, try him on State charges, or what?

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-25 05:00 PM | Reply

If he can't be indicted, and the majority party in the Senate refuses to remove him...

Or maybe betrayal of one's country and/or cheating in an election isn't a serious enough crime.

#46 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-07-25 05:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

FBI Director Wray Admits He's Not Read the Mueller Report

That's OK... Mueller didn't write it...

that much was apparent in the hearings.

#47 | Posted by Pegasus at 2019-07-25 07:52 PM | Reply

That's OK... Mueller didn't write it...

that much was apparent in the hearings.

#59 | Posted by Pegasus

That's OK... YOU didn't read it...

That much is apparent from your comments.

#48 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-07-25 08:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort