Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, December 03, 2019

Attorney General William P. Barr has told associates he disagrees with the Justice Department's inspector general on one of the key findings in an upcoming report -- that the FBI had enough information in July 2016 to justify launching an investigation into members of the Trump campaign, according to people familiar with the matter.

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.

What did you expect from Barr, Trump's Roy Cohn?

#1 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-02 10:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Shocking.

#2 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-02 10:50 PM | Reply

So what you are saying is that Barr is Trump's "wingman."

#3 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-02 11:51 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

The word isn't wingman...it's bitch.

#4 | Posted by 503jc69 at 2019-12-03 04:27 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#3 oh an Obama deflection

Do Hillary next!

#5 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-03 08:55 AM | Reply

It's not wingman and it isn't bitch...he's Trump's Fixer. He's actually doing a great job defending his boss, most Americans think he's despicable and totally unpatriotic but for Trump's purpose he's doing a good job of allowing Trump to break the law with impunity.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2019-12-03 10:23 AM | Reply

So what you are saying is that Barr is Trump's "wingman."

#3 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019

The title is Capo.

#7 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-03 11:30 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This makes me wonder if Durham has found something that the IG missed.

#8 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-03 11:44 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

If Barr didn't say this I would have been completely shocked.

Barr wants the next SCOTUS opening and will do whatever Fat Nixon wants to get it.

#9 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-12-03 11:49 AM | Reply

For months the "right" has been playing up the IG report, telling me just to wait until that comes out because that's when the real fireworks will begin. Now it's not going to say what they wanted it to say, so they will dispute it and move on to the next herring.

Can you -------- just sack up and admit Trump is a ------- conman?

#10 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-03 11:58 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Advertisement

Advertisement

Can you -------- just sack up and admit Trump is a ------- conman?

#10 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-03 11:58 AM | Reply

When you serve the Devil he insists that you be nice to him.

#11 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-03 12:10 PM | Reply

This makes me wonder if Durham has found something that the IG missed.

#8 | Posted by JeffJ

LOL anything to avoid admitting Barr is Trump's stooge, eh Jeff?

#12 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-03 12:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#5 and 12

So by extension, Holder was Obama's stooge and you were equally outraged by that?

Pro Tip: pointing out your hypocrisy is not a defection.

#13 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-03 12:44 PM | Reply

#12

He may be. It's impossible to conclude if that's what is going on prior to the report being released.

It appears your mind is made up regardless of what is actually in the report.

#14 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-03 12:47 PM | Reply

"It appears your mind is made up regardless of what is actually in the report."

My irony meter just pegged.

#15 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-03 12:48 PM | Reply

#10 we don't know what actually says because it hasn't been released yet.

#16 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-03 12:48 PM | Reply

#15 has it now?

I've been consistent in saying I don't think it will be explosive and I'll reserve judgement until after it's released. It's funny that just last night you said something that I thought was BS but I responded that I'd take you at your word. Are you too much of a dick to extend the same courtesy?

#17 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-03 12:51 PM | Reply

"This makes me wonder if Durham has found something that the IG missed."

Then it's working, and that's sad.

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-03 12:53 PM | Reply

"I'll reserve judgement until..."

...the 12th of Never.

#19 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-03 12:53 PM | Reply

Well you answered my question with a resounding yes.

#20 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-03 12:56 PM | Reply

Your projection is astounding. It's obvious your mind is already made up regardless of what the report actually says.

#21 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-03 12:57 PM | Reply

"reserve judgement until after"

Since you missed Danforth's point:

How long after?
As long as it took you to decide Birtherism was not legit?

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-03 12:58 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"It's obvious your mind is already made up regardless of what the report actually says."

Not regardless.
The key findings of the report have already been intimated.

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-03 12:59 PM | Reply

How long after?
?

#22 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

For as long as it takes to read through it and process all of its contents.

My opinions regarding it will begin to cement themselves after Horowitz' testimony 8 days from now.

The key findings of the report have already been intimated.

#23 | POSTED BY SNOOFY A

Really? What are the key findings regarding the Carter Page FISA warrants and how they were obtained?

#24 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-03 02:05 PM | Reply

"What are the key findings regarding the Carter Page FISA warrants and how they were obtained?"

It doesn't really matter how they were obtained. That's the part you still won't accept, even after the report comes out.

It's just like how you don't agree with how gay marriage became legal, even today.

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-03 02:08 PM | Reply

It doesn't really matter how they were obtained.

Really? I'm speaking hypothetically now - If they were obtained by misleading the FISA judge, that wouldn't matter?

#26 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-03 02:11 PM | Reply

It would matter to the extent that malfreasance is its own crime that deserves to be addressed in its own right.

It would not change anything regarding the many investigations into Trump.

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-03 02:13 PM | Reply

It would matter to the extent that malfreasance is its own crime that deserves to be addressed in its own right.

Which is what I'm saying.

It would not change anything regarding the many investigations into Trump.

#27 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Maybe, maybe not. If the selective leaking is to be believed, the IG feels that there was enough there to initiate an investigation.

If that's really what comes out of the report when it's released - fine.

That doesn't give the investigators carte blanche to do whatever they want though. Again, hypothetically, if FISA warrants were illegally obtained that matters considerably.

#28 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-03 02:21 PM | Reply

"I'm speaking hypothetically now"

There's the heuristic substitution, from the actual topic of the specifics in the report, to the hypothetical fruits of a poison tree.

You don't seem to be aware you're fooling yourself, but you're not fooling us.

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-03 02:23 PM | Reply

I'm not trying to fool anyone.

I'm simply pointing out you all are putting the cart in front of the horse.

Your minds appear made up before the report is even released and before Horowitz even testifies.

My prediction is the report will be a bit of a dud for the GOP. It will probably show some malfeasance (we know 1 FBI lawyer has been charged with a crime) due to personal bias but it will fall well short of showing a "deep state" conspiracy to take down Trump. That is what I'm expecting. If the report shows something different from that - fine.

#30 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-03 02:29 PM | Reply

"...If they were obtained by misleading the FISA judge..." - #26 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-03 02:11 PM

There were four (4) FISA warrants signed by as many different FISA judges:

Judge Rosemary Collyer, initially appointed to the federal bench by President George W. Bush
Judge Michael Mosman, initially appointed to the federal bench by President George W. Bush
Judge Anne Conway, initially appointed to the federal bench by George H.W. Bush
Judge Raymond Dearie, initially appointed to the federal bench by Ronald Reagan
There would have had to been an awful lot of "misleading" going on to mislead so many federal judges.

#31 | Posted by Hans at 2019-12-03 02:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Joe, you really nailed it in #10. Of course now, all the right wingers who were insisting the IG's report would exonerate Trump are pretending to have amnesia AND laryngitis. Just one more example of what dishonest and despicable pieces of s*** Trump supporters really are.

#32 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-12-03 03:00 PM | Reply

It's obvious your mind is already made up...
#21 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

My mind is completely made up on the fact That neither Barr or Trump can be trusted to tell the truth.

#33 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2019-12-03 03:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

My mind is completely made up on the fact That neither Barr or Trump can be trusted to tell the truth.

#33 | POSTED BY TFDNIHILIST

Ok. How about Horowitz or Durham?

#34 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-03 03:03 PM | Reply

Pro Tip: pointing out your hypocrisy is not a defection.

#13 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

No, it's just a weak ass argument made by a weak mind that wants to feel like it's participating (here's your trophy).

I didn't have an opinion on holder because I don't recall the issue.

Was he hiding gross misconduct? Actively pursuing political "enemies" via cooked investigations and misrepresentations? Is the situation at all analogous to the current behind the shallow connection of both are AG?

And yes, it is a deflection because you're sidetracking the thread about Obama/Holder when neither of them are irrelevant.

So either comment on Barr or STFU.

#35 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-03 03:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Your projection is astounding. It's obvious your mind is already made up regardless of what the report actually says.

#21 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

LOL holy ---- the lack of self awareness is pathological.

Hint: you can claim objectivity and openness until you're blue in the face and it will be meaningless if your actions are inconsistent with that statement.

#36 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-03 03:18 PM | Reply

#35 neither of them are RELEVANT.

#37 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-03 03:19 PM | Reply

pointing out your hypocrisy is not a defection

Under what definition of any of those terms is it not?

#38 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-03 03:20 PM | Reply

How about Horowitz or Durham?
#34 | Posted by JeffJ

Can't say as I don't know enough about either of them.

#39 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2019-12-03 03:43 PM | Reply

JEFF, for all his several genuine talents, admires Trump. I can only guess Donald is doing something JEFF really likes, but he is embarrassed to say what out loud.

#40 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-03 03:57 PM | Reply

The fact that Trump is an accused rapist is probably why jeffj admires him so much.

#41 | Posted by blackheartsun at 2019-12-03 04:09 PM | Reply

Can't say as I don't know enough about either of them.

#39 | POSTED BY TFDNIHILIST

Fair enough.

Hint: you can claim objectivity and openness until you're blue in the face and it will be meaningless if your actions are inconsistent with that statement.

#36 | POSTED BY JPW

I'm not claiming objectivity and openness. It's something I strive for but I know it's not something I always achieve.

Question: Do you really think it's ridiculous on my part to hold off drawing conclusions about the report until after I've had a chance to read through it and hear the IG testimony in the Senate 8 days from now?

Hint: You are one of the last people who should be lecturing anybody about objectivity and openness.

#42 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-03 04:14 PM | Reply

#41 | POSTED BY BLACKHEARTSUN

Hi BoydDirkCooperBadweekBarneyStepp,

How was your barista this morning?

I'm guessing you'll be sipping some Zima while you read your newly acquired Chomsky pamphlet tonight?

#43 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-03 04:16 PM | Reply

#40 | POSTED BY ZED

I haven't even commented about Trump on this thread.

#44 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-03 04:18 PM | Reply

"Do you really think it's ridiculous on my part to hold off drawing conclusions about the report?"

Except you're not doing that.

You're hoping that Trump is exonerated of any crimes because of a fishy FISA warrant.

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-03 05:45 PM | Reply

I haven't even commented about Trump on this thread.

#44 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-03

My impression of you generally is that you like Trump. It would be interesting to know why.

#46 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-03 06:06 PM | Reply

 

... Attorney General William P. Barr has told associates he disagrees with the Justice Department's inspector general on one of the key findings in an upcoming report -- that the FBI had enough information in July 2016 to justify launching an investigation into members of the Trump campaign, according to people familiar with the matter. ...

While I want to wait until I can see the full report before I develop my opinion, I will say now that this early reporting is no surprise.

Especially in the light of AG Barr's recent speech about the supreme (I'll say nearly dictatorial) power of the executive branch.

#47 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-03 10:48 PM | Reply

Question: Do you really think it's ridiculous on my part to hold off drawing conclusions about the report until after I've had a chance to read through it and hear the IG testimony in the Senate 8 days from now?

You say this on every thread where info suggests nothing is being found to substantiate GOP conspiracy theories regarding FISA warrants and initiation of counter intelligence investigations into the Trump campaign.

But Barr disagreeing with findings leads you to believe something nefarious has been found that we haven't heard.

In other words, you seem to still regard Barr as in an impartial actor loyal to the American people over Trump.

And that viewpoint is naive and foolish.

Hence the reaction by myself and others to your comments.

#48 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-03 10:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

JPW

All I'm saying is don't put the cart before the horse.

The report hasn't even been released yet and folks are already claiming it has nothing incriminating in it.

The leaks have all been to media outlets that are extremely friendly to certain operatives.

I personally think the report will be a bit of a dud for the GOP. But that's just a prediction.

Is your mind already made up?

#49 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-03 11:06 PM | Reply

Barr reportedly disagreeing with A key finding (singular) has little bearing on me. I can't evaluate the report prior to even seeing it. I'm amazed how clairvoyant some people claim to be regarding this report and it applies to both sides.

#50 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-03 11:09 PM | Reply

@#50 ... how clairvoyant some people claim to be regarding this report ...

I am using the early reporting to form my preliminary opinion, and I stated as much.

If this early reporting is correct, does AG Barr's opinion surprise you?

#51 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-03 11:20 PM | Reply

Lamp,

If this early reporting is incorrect, or misleading does AG Barr's opinion surprise you?

We are engaging in idle speculation and I'm highly skeptical of any selective leaks this close to the formal release of any investigation of this nature and that applies broadly. John Solomon has recently cited inside sources that this thing will be explosive. He spins a very well-scripted yarn implicating the "deep state coup". Others on the right have exhaustively dig into this and have produced plenty to suggest an Obama-admin deep state orchestrated soft-coup.

Books have already been published regarding this angle and they are far more detailed and meticulous than anything WaPo or NYT has produced from their sources.

To me it's all noise to varying degrees. None of it is official.

Wait for the report to be released and then begin to let the chips fall where they may...

#52 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-03 11:32 PM | Reply

"I'm highly skeptical of any selective leaks'

Oh, please...you know how this works: both sides leak. If one side leaks bad news, and the other side doesn't have anything to leak...

...what is your educated guess?

#53 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-03 11:37 PM | Reply

#53

As I've already said, the selective leaking here makes little sense if the report is going to be a dud, especially as we are approaching the eve of the release of the report.

I'll wait for it to be released and will go from there - read through it myself as opposed to teases from spinmeisters on both sides.

#54 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-03 11:46 PM | Reply

Sometimes movie trailers look great but the movie itself sucks. Sometimes the opposite is true.

#WaitfortheReporttobeReleased. Is that even a thing?

#55 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-03 11:49 PM | Reply

I've already expressed my educated guess multiple times, Danforth. I don't think this report is going to amount to much.

#56 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-03 11:50 PM | Reply

"I don't think this report is going to amount to much."

Reporting the investigation had plenty of justification amounts to a lot, based on what you've intimated in the past.

#57 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-03 11:52 PM | Reply

#57

I'll restate- I don't think this IG report will amount to much as a vehicle to bolster the GOP claim that the counter-intelligence investigation into the Trump campaign was a deep state coup.

#58 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-03 11:59 PM | Reply

From the House Intelligence Committee's Draft Impeachment Report

President Trump's Unprecedented Order Not to Comply

(pp 211)

...On September 26, President Trump argued that Congress should not be "allowed" to impeach him under the Constitution: "What these guys are doing"Democrats"are doing to this country is a disgrace and it shouldn't be allowed. There should be a way of stopping it"maybe legally, through the courts." A common theme of President Trump's defiance has been his claims that Congress is acting in an unprecedented way and using unprecedented rules. However, the House has been following the same investigative rules that Republicans championed when they were in control and conducted aggressive oversight of previous Administrations.

*(i.e., process)

#59 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-12-04 12:21 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Bill Barr prefers the alternative facts.

#60 | Posted by anton at 2019-12-04 07:28 AM | Reply

You're hoping that Trump is exonerated of any crimes because of a fishy FISA warrant.

#45 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2019-12-03 05:45 PM | FLAG:

So you are ok if the report shows it that the FBI or CIA can spy on you based on false information? That what happens in communist countries. I thought you were anti communist? What changed?

#61 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-12-04 10:42 AM | Reply

In other words, you seem to still regard Barr as in an impartial actor loyal to the American people over Trump.
And that viewpoint is naive and foolish.
Hence the reaction by myself and others to your comments.

#48 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2019-12-03 10:55 PM | FLAG:

I think Barr is loyal to the law and the constitution. If he provides evidence it will be backed by facts not here-say.

#62 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-12-04 10:48 AM | Reply

I've already expressed my educated guess multiple times, Danforth. I don't think this report is going to amount to much.

#56 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-12-03 11:50 PM | FLAG:

Horowitz report, not much, Durham report, Bombshell. Brennon, Clapper, McCabe, Comey, time to lawyer up. And the fact that they are already leaking this and coming out to say it's trash is telling. They know there is trouble, if the report was a dud why even bother commenting on it before it comes out.

#63 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-12-04 10:55 AM | Reply

if the report was a dud why even bother commenting on it before it comes out.

#63 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

Honestly, that is what I find so surprising about the selective leaking and the media spin being put on these leaks. The GOP and its allies have been building up this report for a half year. Politically it makes more sense to just stay quiet and let the big splash be nothing than to try and set a narrative in advance of its release. The Mueller report was supposed to be the Holy Grail and it was a complete flop regarding collusion, which was why the investigation was purportedly launched in the first place.

#64 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 11:20 AM | Reply

The fact that Chuck Todd had the founders of Fusion GPS on last week is also telling. No one knows who they are but after this report comes out everyone will. If the Durham report exposes what I think it will expose (and I am one of those who have read the books related to it and everything in the books have turned out to be accurate so far) it will show that the party in charge of the WH used the CIA and the FBI to influence the out come of the election and when that didn't work used them to try and remove an elected POTUS. That is a big deal.

#65 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-12-04 12:28 PM | Reply

"(and I am one of those who have read the books related to it and everything in the books have turned out to be accurate so far)"

Go on.

#66 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-04 12:50 PM | Reply

#66 That Durham would find some clues in Italy, etc. Predictions that when the report would come out if it was damning it would be leaked and those who would be hurt by it would try to dismiss it before it came out.

#67 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-12-04 01:16 PM | Reply

#65 I'm curious: what books have you read?

#68 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-04 01:19 PM | Reply

I will say this. Barr better hope Durham finds something Trump can use to justify all his hoax/witch hunt claims because Barr keeping his job as AG no doubt depends on it.

#69 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-04 01:22 PM | Reply

We were asked to wait for the Mueller report to come out before we passed judgement, It would be fair to ask the same for the Durham report.

#70 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-12-04 01:25 PM | Reply

"We were asked to wait for the Mueller report to come out before we passed judgement, It would be fair to ask the same for the Durham report."

Just asking you to expand on your previous post:

If the Durham report exposes what I think it will expose (and I am one of those who have read the books related to it and everything in the books have turned out to be accurate so far) it will show that the party in charge of the WH used the CIA and the FBI to influence the out come of the election and when that didn't work used them to try and remove an elected POTUS. That is a big deal.
#65 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-12-04 12:28 PM

#71 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-04 01:27 PM | Reply

For example, is this one of the books you've read?:

Deep State Target: How I Got Caught in the Crosshairs of the Plot to Bring Down President Trump Hardcover " March 26, 2019
by George Papadopoulos (Author)

www.amazon.com

#72 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-04 01:29 PM | Reply

#72 Nope, one of Gregg Jarrett's books. It is footnoted all through it showing the sources of the info. Not based on here-say or interpreation.

#73 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-12-04 01:36 PM | Reply

Technically true:

Bobby Lewis @revrrlewis

Fox "legal analyst" Gregg Jarrett says that maybe Devin Nunes did *not* have calls with with Giuliani, the White House, and Lev Parnas, because it could've been "somebody else" using Nunes' phone, "we just don't know."

twitter.com

I know! Maybe Devin lent his phone to his cow!

#74 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-04 01:48 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

We were asked to wait for the Mueller report to come out before we passed judgement, It would be fair to ask the same for the Durham report.

#70 | Posted by fishpaw

And you've done nothing but lie about and distort what that report said.

Just as you'll do with the IG reports.

#75 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 01:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#72 Nope, one of Gregg Jarrett's books. It is footnoted all through it showing the sources of the info. Not based on here-say or interpreation.

#73 | Posted by fishpaw

So were Ann Coulter's garbage pile "books".

What a simple minded fool. It has footnotes so it must be true!

#76 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 01:51 PM | Reply

The Daily Beast @thedailybeast

Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett spun an interesting theory on Wednesday morning: "Somebody Else" may have used Nunes" phone to call Parnas and Giuliani

www.thedailybeast.com

LOL, the responses to this are too funny. For example:

"Was it Rudy's butt?"

#77 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-04 01:54 PM | Reply

"Ann Coulter"

That's Ann "I know voter fraud exists because I committed it" Coulter to you!

#78 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-04 01:58 PM | Reply

And you've done nothing but lie about and distort what that report said.
Just as you'll do with the IG reports.

#75 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2019-12-04 01:50 PM | FLAG:

I just went by what Mueller said. And since what he said didn't fit your narrative you needed him to testify and I watched that as well and it still didn't say there was collusion. And then you said Mueller was a bum. What is there to lie and distort about unless you think Mueller got it wrong like you obviously think?

#79 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-12-04 02:41 PM | Reply

What a simple minded fool. It has footnotes so it must be true!

#76 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2019-12-04 01:51 PM | FLAG:

What are you going to read now that Mad magazine is gone?

#80 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-12-04 02:44 PM | Reply

"The Mueller report was supposed to be the Holy Grail and it was a complete flop regarding collusion"

#64 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Jeff, The Mueller Report stated that collusion could not be proven b/c lots of people stonewalled, and many lied to the FBI.

The House Impeachment Committee is also investigating Trump's written testimony in the Mueller Investigation for suspect accuracy and forthright responses.

For you to try to blow-dry and hair-spray your point into a believable assumption that 'no collusion occurred' is as absurd as Trump's hair, and that Trump's head on Rocky Balboa's body wasnt photo-shopped thingy.

#81 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2019-12-04 06:45 PM | Reply

Jeff, The Mueller Report stated that collusion could not be proven b/c lots of people stonewalled, and many lied to the FBI.

Well...

Here is the Mueller report, by the numbers:

- 675: The number of days from when Mueller was appointed to the day he turned in his report to Barr.

- 34: people indicted as a result of Mueller's investigation, including Russian nationals and several former Trump aides and advisors.

- 19: lawyers who were employed by the special counsel's office, according to a letter Barr sent to Congress on Sunday.

- About 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants and other staff that assisted with the investigation.

- More than 2,800 subpoenas issued by the Special Counsel's office, that's an average of at least four per day.

- Nearly 500 search warrants executed.

- More than 230 orders for communication records.

- Nearly 50 authorized orders for the use of pen registers, a tool that lets the government know who someone is communicating with and when, but not what they said.

- 13 evidence requests to foreign governments

- 500 witnesses interviewed

- $25 million in posted costs as of February

Mueller report:Investigation found no evidence Trump conspired with Russia, leaves obstruction question open


www.usatoday.com

He was very quick to prosecute Padapadopolous over lying about some dates. With all of the resources I just cited and he found no evidence of collusion...it's probably because it wasn't there in the first place.

#82 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 06:50 PM | Reply

This makes me wonder if Durham has found something that the IG missed.
#8 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Hook, line and sinker.

#83 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2019-12-05 01:38 AM | Reply

"I'm speaking hypothetically now"
There's the heuristic substitution, from the actual topic of the specifics in the report, to the hypothetical fruits of a poison tree.
You don't seem to be aware you're fooling yourself, but you're not fooling us.

#29 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2019-12-03 02:23 PM | REPLY

Did I hear my name? Interesting...

#84 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2019-12-05 02:07 AM | Reply

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