Patterico's Pontifications

3/5/2020

Federal Judge: Barr’s Handling of Mueller Report Lacked Candor and Calls His Credibility Into Question

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:06 pm



U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton has issued an eye-opening order today directly calling into question the credibility of Attorney General William Barr, based on Barr’s misleading summary of the Mueller report.

That Barr spun the report in a dishonest fashion is not news, of course. On May 3, 2019, I wrote a long post detailing how Barr had misled the American people about the contents of the Mueller report. My post cited and concurred with another detailed article by Benjamin Wittes on the same topic.

But to hear these things spoken by a federal judge, in a published order, is another level of magnitude.

Judge Walton is hearing FOIA cases brought by the Electronic Privacy Information Center as well as by Buzzfeed and our old unreliable friend Jason Leopold. Today Judge Walton ruled that he will independently review whether the redactions in the report are proper. Judge Walton explains that when the government seeks to keep information secret and assures the court that the secrecy is for legitimate reasons, a judge will conduct in camera review of the material (review of material privately in the judge’s chambers) when there is evidence — or at least a suspicion in the judge’s mind — that the government has acted in bad faith, such that the judge cannot completely rely on the government’s representations. Judge Walton says that is the case with the redactions in the Mueller report, and sets forth in detail why he can’t rely on Barr’s representations that the redactions are for legitimate reasons:

The Court has grave concerns about the objectivity of the process that preceded the public release of the redacted version of the Mueller Report and its impacts on the Department’s subsequent justifications that its redactions of the Mueller Report are authorized by the FOIA.

. . . .

The speed by which Attorney General Barr released to the public the summary of Special Counsel Mueller’s principal conclusions, coupled with the fact that Attorney General Barr failed to provide a thorough representation of the findings set forth in the Mueller Report, causes the Court to question whether Attorney General Barr’s intent was to create a one-sided narrative about the Mueller Report — a narrative that is clearly in some respects substantively at odds with the redacted version of the Mueller Report. Attorney General Barr’s decision to not only conduct a press conference but also issue his April 18, 2019 letter immediately prior to releasing the redacted version of the Mueller Report to the public on April 18, 2019, also causes the Court concern.

. . . .

[T]he Court has reviewed the redacted version of the Mueller Report, Attorney General Barr’s representations made during his April 18, 2019 press conference, and Attorney General Barr’s April 18, 2019 letter. And, the Court cannot reconcile certain public representations made by Attorney General Barr with the findings in the Mueller Report. The inconsistencies between Attorney General Barr’s statements, made at a time when the public did not have access to the redacted version of the Mueller Report to assess the veracity of his statements, and portions of the redacted version of the Mueller Report that conflict with those statements cause the Court to seriously question whether Attorney General Barr made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse about the Mueller Report in favor of President Trump despite certain findings in the redacted version of the Mueller Report to the contrary.

These circumstances generally, and Attorney General Barr’s lack of candor specifically, call into question Attorney General Barr’s credibility and in turn, the Department’s representation that “all of the information redacted from the version of the [Mueller] Report released by [ ] Attorney General [Barr]” is protected from disclosure by its claimed FOIA exemptions.”

Wow. When you are Attorney General Barr, one phrase you don’t like to see in a federal judge’s published opinion is “Attorney General Barr’s lack of candor.”

Judge Walton concludes:

[T]he Court must conclude that the actions of Attorney General Barr and his representations about the Mueller Report preclude the Court’s acceptance of the validity of the Department’s redactions without its independent verification.”

That is just a stunning rebuke of the nation’s highest law enforcement official by a federal judge. (In case you are tempted to scream Obama Judge! or Unqualified Judge! please note that Judge Walton was appointed by George W. Bush and served for a time as the Presiding Judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.)

66 Responses to “Federal Judge: Barr’s Handling of Mueller Report Lacked Candor and Calls His Credibility Into Question”

  1. So there you have it.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  2. [T]he Court must conclude that the actions of Attorney General Barr and his representations about the Mueller Report preclude the Court’s acceptance of the validity of the Department’s redactions without its independent verification.”

    Sounds like a prudent judge.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  3. Yeah, but isn’t this really a day-late-dollar-short, horse-has-already-left-the-barn sorta thing? The Mueller Report and Barr’s spin was nearly a year ago– that’s a century in news cycles and impeachment has come and gone. It’s not like the man cares about his professional or personal reputation anymore, given who he has chosen to work for. This will be his last gig and he’ll retire comfortably on a government pension- and quill a book with yet more tales spun his way.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  4. Well, ok, I read the entire opinion. Bottom line: “I wish I could take for granted that the redactions were in good faith, but unfortunately I can’t, because Mr. Barr has done too many things to make me suspect that he’s a lying crapweasel looking to cover up for his boss. So I’m going to have to read the unredacted report and see for myself.”

    Bottomer bottom line: A judge who reads is a keeper.

    nk (1d9030)

  5. “please note that Judge Walton was appointed by George W. Bush and served for a time as the Presiding Judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court“

    OK, let’s call him the male Harriet Miers. Certainly a Bush Jr. pick, no doubt.

    Speaking of FISC a judge takedowns, are we pretending this didn’t happen?
    https://dailycaller.com/2020/03/05/spy-court-fisa-carter-page/

    FBI agents involved in the process of wiretapping Carter Page were barred Wednesday from taking part in other investigations involving surveillance warrants while they are under disciplinary or criminal review.

    The order, from Judge James Boasberg, who presides over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), is the latest fallout from a Justice Department watchdog’s report on FBI and Justice Department abuses of the surveillance process against Page.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  6. “Attorney General Barr’s lack of candor.”

    Ah yes, that phase “lack of candor” again.

    That’s when you lie under oath and skate because prosecutor, or something. $ucks when that happens.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  7. please note that Judge Walton was appointed by George W. Bush

    I’m not sure which Bush it was, but I’ll just note that Souter was appointed by Bush-I, and Harriet Miers and Roberts were nominated by Bush II. With Republicans, the Judges they appoint may be conservative, or they may not. With Democrats, the judges are 90% liberal/left. And that’s even more true at the District Court level. BTW, Bush-II also signed off on Comey as Deputy AG. So, its not like Bush II was a hardcore Conservative.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  8. OK, let’s call him the male Harriet Miers.

    Nah! I prefer to call him a conscientious and hardworking judge.

    nk (1d9030)

  9. OK, let’s call him the male Harriet Miers. Certainly a Bush Jr. pick, no doubt.

    OK. Let’s don’t.

    And let’s don’t deflect. You have something to add to this story, swell.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  10. Barr’s indenture to Trump is a hell of a capstone for a man’s career, though, I’ll tell you. Barr will be trying to spit the taste out of his mouth for the rest of his life.

    nk (1d9030)

  11. What an absurd ruling! Basically all this judge did was give his PERSONAL opinion that Barr “lacked candor” and used it as a justification to see the un-redacted report. Its just another Judge acting like he’s King instead of a lawyer in black robes. What, pray tell, is the Great and almighty Judge going to find? As the DoJ stated, the redactions were done for personal privacy, litigation, and classified materials. They don’t in any manner change the conclusions of Mueller’s report. But this little Judge wants to be THE DECIDER. Here’s what he says:

    If, after reviewing the unredacted version of the Mueller Report, the Court
    concludes that all of the information has been appropriately withheld under the claimed FOIA
    exemptions, it will issue a supplemental Memorandum Opinion and Order granting the
    Department’s motion for summary judgment on that ground and denying the plaintiffs’ crossmotions.
    On the other hand, if the Court concludes after its in camera review that any of the
    redacted information was inappropriately withheld, it will issue a supplemental Memorandum
    Opinion and Order that comports with that finding.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  12. From what I can tell from the Judges order, HE – and he alone -will decide what gets redacted and what doesn’t! Next time the DoJ should just skip the redaction process, and get Judge Sullivan to do it.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  13. BTW, if there were any nasty little tid-bits – bad for Trump – in the Redacted report, they would’ve gotten leaked. Classified data or not.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  14. As usual, you have no flucking notion of what you are gassing about.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  15. That is just a stunning rebuke of the nation’s highest law enforcement official by a federal judge

    And when you read the nonsensical, arrogant, opinion you can see that a “rebuke” from a Judge of this sort is a badge of honor.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  16. When the redactions are found to be legit, I’m sure we’ll hear all about it.

    Suggested phasing: The redactions were found to be properly predicated and lacking bias.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  17. *phrasing

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  18. The AG’s summary has zero legal status and is like any other public relations statement by a public official. If this is important, then perhaps federal judges should start issuing their opinions of the utterances of all public officials, including senators (helllo, Chuckie Schumer!). And why not Mueller (“I wrote the report but never heard of Fusion GPS), Comey ( “Huma was married to Weiner?”), and Stzrok (“It never affected my objectivity!)?

    Jenny from Iowa (36f47d)

  19. When the redactions are found to be legit, I’m sure we’ll hear all about it.

    If you have the snap to read, than you certainly WILL.

    If, after reviewing the unredacted version of the Mueller Report, the Court
    concludes that all of the information has been appropriately withheld under the claimed FOIA
    exemptions, it will issue a supplemental Memorandum Opinion and Order granting the
    Department’s motion for summary judgment on that ground and denying the plaintiffs’ crossmotions.

    It doesn’t get any more clear than that.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  20. The AG’s summary has zero legal status and is like any other public relations statement by a public official.

    That’s absolutely untrue. Why is this judge HAVING to review Barr’s crap? He isn’t doing it because he needs the work.

    Jeeeebus… READ people.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  21. Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 3/5/2020 @ 7:19 pm

    LOL

    Yeah, I’ll keep an eye out for that supplemental memorandum—since it won’t get reported anywhere else, thus my point which sailed past your ear.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  22. You’re Jenny from Iowa, again, “Sandra”? Don’t you have an opened bag of Cheetos going stale? Get to them, “girl”!

    nk (1d9030)

  23. You didn’t READ, Marilyn. The Court made clear what happens, and IF you actually give a fluck, you’ll watch for the case to end on summary judgment.

    T-rump cultist are illiterate, I guess…

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  24. “We’ve nailed them this time!” nothingburger V 237.
    _

    harkin (b64479)

  25. The surprising thing to me is the implication that, but for Barr’s lack of candor (and lack of credibility), he would just take the DOJ’s word for it that the redactions are legit. The opinion cites some law that says in camera review is only in the exceptional case.

    That may be the case for FOIA challenges, but it is certainly NOT the way federal courts handle privilege challenges. On many occassions, when my adversary has challenged privilege designations for documents, the court has asked to review the documents in camera. My impression is that such is the norm, not the exception, in federal practice.

    I am dubious that the Courts should just take the government’s word for it when redactions are made. Especially something as sensitive as the Mueller report.

    Bored Lawyer (56c962)

  26. We can only hope that’s the (only) implication, Bored Lawyer. The ruling was on cross-motions for summary judgment, presumably supported by affidavit or sworn depositions. I see an implication that the government might, just “might” mind you, be lying to the court in those filings.

    nk (1d9030)

  27. That’s absolutely untrue. Why is this judge HAVING to review Barr’s crap? He isn’t doing it because he needs the work.

    Judges read graffiti on bathroom walls, too. So what?

    Jenny from Iowa (36f47d)

  28. Judges read graffiti on bathroom walls, too. So what?

    I keep hoping we’ve plumbed the depths of stupid straw-man fallacies.

    But, no. Damnit.

    The illiteracy is astounding!

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  29. I keep hoping we’ve plumbed the depths of stupid straw-man fallacies.

    I keep hoping we’ve plumbed the depths of stupid zero-content responses.

    Jenny from Iowa (36f47d)

  30. It’s not like there have been a lot of upstanding AGs of late.

    Ignoring the acting ones, lessee, going back to Reagan:

    Barr: see above
    Sessions: early Trump supporter, could not keep Trump out of trouble, liked asset forfeiture and the drug war
    Lynch: the fix was in
    Holder: never saw any smidgen of corruption
    Mukasey: favored torture
    Gonzales: torture, fired USAs for political reasons. This was bad when he did it.
    Ashcroft: prude, Abu Ghraib, roture
    Reno: Waco, Elian Gonzalez, Ruby Ridge, Richard Jewell
    Barr: accused of Iraqgate coverup, favored parsons for Iran-Contra
    Thornberg: nothing here
    Meese: several scandals
    Smith: nothing here either

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  31. *torture
    *pardons

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  32. Maybe it’s just something about politicians and attorneys?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  33. KevinM, you forgot Yates — Weissmann’s pet.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  34. 10.Barr’s indenture to Trump is a hell of a capstone for a man’s career, though, I’ll tell you. Barr will be trying to spit the taste out of his mouth for the rest of his life.

    Don’t really think it bothers him– anymore than it bothered Nixon’s John Mitchell.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  35. He’s a district court judge for DC. Which Senators had blue slip power over him?

    Previous decisions:

    Past cases
    United States v. Libby
    Main article: United States v. Libby
    Walton also presided over the trial of Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, Scooter Libby. On March 6, 2007, the jury convicted Libby of four of the five counts with which he was charged: two counts of perjury, one of obstruction of justice, and one of making false statements to federal investigators.[6] On June 5, 2007, Walton sentenced Libby to 30 months in federal prison and a fine of US$250,000, and, subsequently, he ordered that Libby report to jail without bail pending any appeals.[7] On June 20, 2007, Libby appealed Walton’s ruling in federal appeals court.[8] The next day, Walton filed a 30-page expanded ruling, in which he explained his decision to deny Libby bail in more detail.[9]

    Whitewater
    Main article: Whitewater controversy
    On October 4, 2016, Walton rejected the release of Hillary Clinton criminal indictment drafts prosecutors prepared, but never issued, during the Whitewater investigation in the 1990s. He ruled that Clinton had a “substantial privacy interest” when he rejected a Judicial Watch lawsuit under FOIA.[14][15][16]

    NJRob (4d595c)

  36. I fear it is past time for Trump supporters to consider the a-hole rule. “If you leave your house in the morning and meet an ahole, you’ve met an ahole. If you leave the house in the morning and everyone you meet all day long is an ahole, maybe it isn’t them.” Perhaps 90% of the people who come into contact with the Trump administration (or leave the Trump administration)aren’t against Trump and his administration because they are establishmentswampdemocraticrepublicans. Maybe Trump and his admin eff things up.

    Nic (896fdf)

  37. On June 20, 2007, Libby appealed Walton’s ruling in federal appeals court.[8] The next day, Walton filed a 30-page expanded ruling, in which he explained his decision to deny Libby bail in more detail.

    In my ex[experience, Walton did Libby a favor. Most trial court judges do NOT like making elaborate rulings. They tend to keep things as vague as possible, despite being given drafts of rulings that would make a more detailed record to go up on appeal. The more detail, the more traps they could trip. Walton appears to be a pretty fair, gutsy jurist.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  38. It’s heartening that a federal judge affirmed the obvious about Barr.

    Paul Montagu (8497cf)

  39. Basically all this judge did was give his PERSONAL opinion that Barr “lacked candor” and used it as a justification to see the un-redacted report.

    Except for the objective difference between Barr’s letter and Mueller’s report, an objective difference that Mueller objected to.

    Paul Montagu (8497cf)

  40. KevinM, you forgot Yates — Weissmann’s pet.

    I said I was ignoring acting AGs.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  41. These circumstances generally, and Attorney General Barr’s lack of candor specifically, call into question Attorney General Barr’s credibility

    trumpworld is a magical place where unicorns cavort and dreams come true

    Dave (1bb933)

  42. Could Eugene Scalia, a secretary already take over as AG when Trump fires ruby ridge barr? Any scenario like this possible?
    I dont even think mitch the snitch could do anything.

    mg (8cbc69)

  43. For 210 days.

    nk (1d9030)

  44. Who can serve as Acting Attorney General. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/LSB10217.pdf

    nk (1d9030)

  45. Couple things. One, for all those Trumpalistas who clamored for McCabe to be indicted for “lack of candor”, where is the outrage now that a judge declared AG Barr had committed the same offense?
    Two, Marcy Wheeler has been following this closely. Her conclusions:

    Where this ruling may matter, though, is in four areas:
    ● DOJ hid the circumstances of how both Trump and Don Jr managed to avoid testifying under a grand jury redaction. Walton may judge that these discussions were not truly grand jury materials.
    ● DOJ is currently hiding details of people — like KT McFarland — who lied, but then cleaned up their story (Sam Clovis is another person this may be true of). There’s no reason someone as senior as McFarland should have her lies protected. All the more so, because DOJ is withholding some of the 302s that show her lies. So Walton may release some of this information.
    ● Because Walton will have already read the Stone material — that part that most implicates Trump — by the time Judge Amy Berman Jackson releases the gag in that case, he will have a view on what would still need to be redacted. That may mean more of it will be released quickly than otherwise might happen.
    ● In very short order, the two sides in this case will start arguing over DOJ’s withholding of 302s under very aggressive b5 claims. These claims, unlike most of the redactions in the Mueller Report, are substantively bogus and in many ways serve to cover up the details of Trump’s activities. While this won’t happen in the near term, I expect this ruling will serve as the basis for a similar in camera review on 302s down the road.

    Paul Montagu (8497cf)

  46. trumpworld is a magical place where unicorns cavort and dreams come true

    I believe it’s elephants that are cavorting.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ7IGnQPZPQ

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  47. “One, for all those Trumpalistas who clamored for McCabe to be indicted for “lack of candor”, where is the outrage now that a judge declared AG Barr had committed the same offense?”
    Paul Montagu (8497cf) — 3/6/2020 @ 6:45 am

    LOL

    We’re following your example Montagu. I guess you missed my @6.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  48. They did.

    Nobody tells me anything.
    https://twitter.com/XochitlHinojosa/status/1235009904634728448

    nk (1d9030)

  49. Oops. That last belongs on Dana’s post.

    nk (1d9030)

  50. Thw inortant thing to know about Senator Schumer’s statement at that rally in front of the Sureme Court building is that he was lying

    Nothing that he did would depend on how the Supreme Court ruled. That was just to rouse up the pro abortion people.

    And he was making an excuse for himself. Running strong ads, or packing the Supreme Court if he got the chances, but he;d probably want a number of cases for that,

    Sammy Finkelman (9570ad)

  51. Can we stop with the crap and these Bush judges. We always hear the same propagnda point “Why he was appointed by Bush I or Bush II he can’t be a liberal!” This has been proven wrong again and again. Its in the same class with “Mueller, Comey, Fitzgerald, Walsh Can’t be biased against Republicans, why they’re LIFE LONG REPUBLICANS”. OR David Gergan worked under Reagan, he can’t be a moderate/liberal. LOL!

    This Judge is African American. How many AA are Republicans – 10%? Or what are the chances this Judge was appointed because of the Senatorial Courtesy and a Democrat wanted him? Or because Bush just wanted to appoint a black lawyer and this guy was the least liberal? As written above, there’s nothing in his track record indicating he’s a conservative or pro-Republican in any way. Quite the opposite.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  52. And I agree. We’ve heard it shouted from the rooftops that the Judge didn’t trust Barr. But if his review ends up supporting the redactions, we’ll get a paragraph on page 5 of the Washington Post.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  53. Given that we know, beyond a shadow of doubt, that Team Mueller intentionally manipulated the report to portray Trump in the worst light possible. Especially embedding grand jury 6e material throughout the report in order to force the DOJ to review/redact after the Team was done…even when AG Barr requested that they’d be quarantined, which the Mueller Team refused to do… should dispel any notion that any of this was conducted in good faith.

    We know this to be true since we now know that the FBI knew the Steele dossier was bunk and that the Trump campaign didn’t conspire with Russia by January 2017. The Special Counsel was really about Trump firing Comey and setting up perjury traps.

    Furthermore, AG Barr’s initial bottom-line conclusion report (which is accurate) was kosher because in a typical investigation, prosecutors do not publicize their findings of their unindicted targets. However, it was the Mueller Team’s goal to air out as much dirty laundry as possible and dagnabit! AG Barr got in the way! (which he literally released the entire fething report a few weeks later that was more than 98% unredacted).

    Mueller Team weren’t able to establish any material link of criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, but absolutely wrote in a narrative manner that there were unsavory collusions between the two.

    Barr simply pointed out the former, and chose a different narrative in his initial report. The thing I think folks get hung up on here is believing that the Special Counsel is an independent entity who should have total say how their reports should be publicized. The are not – AG Barr is the boss here and is empowered to make a different determination. (Frankly, I’d argued that Barr shouldn’t have made that report public in the first place).

    While Judge Walton may be concerned about Barr’s narrative in his bottom-line conclusion report, I don’t see it as an indictment against Barr as you seem to take it. Judge Walton has always been skeptical toward the government’s position as evidenced to him laying into the Obama DOJ during the IRS scandal. So, I don’t think much will come of this FOIA case once Judge Walton sees the redacted materials.

    whembly (c30c83)

  54. Schumer gets slapped down by the Chief Justice for threatening its members. Schumer through his spokesman then sneers at Roberts calling him a Right wing hack.

    If Trump had done that, we’d still be talking about it, and we’d have Headlines in the NYT for a week and endless talk of a Congressional Censure. But hey, its a Democrat – so fogetaboutit – its just “words”.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  55. While Judge Walton may be concerned about Barr’s narrative in his bottom-line conclusion report, I don’t see it as an indictment against Barr as you seem to take it. Judge Walton has always been skeptical toward the government’s position as evidenced to him laying into the Obama DOJ during the IRS scandal. So, I don’t think much will come of this FOIA case once Judge Walton sees the redacted materials.

    That Walton goes on in memorandum – page after page – attacking Barr based on nothing more than his personal opinions proves nothing. He’s just another lawyer in black robes popping off. If he had a judicial temperament, he could simply said that given the doubts raised, he would review the redractions before making a decision. Instead, he went out of his way to slam Barr, and sounded like a Democrat hack.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  56. Thank you, nk.

    mg (8cbc69)

  57. This Judge is African American. How many AA are Republicans – 10%

    Your racism is showing again RCocean.

    Time123 (b87ded)

  58. This sorta reminds me of Pelosi– and legal eagles– and politician types as well, railing about Trump–‘He’s impeached! No matter what, he will always wear the label of having been impeached!’

    This is clearly a ‘scarlet letter’ in those circles; it’s significant in their universe, but to a fella who has weathered bankruptcies and multiple divorces, it really doesn’t seem to mean all that much; certainly not as much as ‘ratings’ in his universe. It’s akin to soccer fans cheering ‘hat trick’ when to disinterested, non-soccer fans, they just sort of shrug w/indifference. Given Barr’s indifference and kinship to the John Mitchell school of legalities, getting chided by a judge is less significant in his universe than keeping the boss happy.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  59. So all you need to open grand jury testimony is a FOIA request? I’ll have to consider the implications.

    As far as the fine Judges opinion of Barrs conclusion of the Mueller Report. ??? Exactly what legal jurisdiction doe the Judge have? The Special Counsel law assigns the power to deliver some, part, alot, all of nothing of the report.
    There is nothing in the redactions that are actionable. (Remember Weisman could have leaked anything that would generate negative publicity.)
    So there is nothing of interest in the redactions. Having said that, Barr should appeal this judges baseless ramblings. It’s a power grab. The Statue governing the handling of the final report rests 100% with a AG. No FOIA request has the power to unseal Grand Jury testimony.

    Iowan2 (1c4a14)

  60. The Statue governing the handling of the final report rests 100% with a AG.

    I wonder where he keeps that sculpture?

    Between you and the other T-rump cultists here, I think you’ve conducted a short-course in illiteracy, vacuity, how to apologize for awful conduct, racism, and slavering devotion to a thug.

    Way to go…

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  61. /thread
    https://twitter.com/JohnWHuber/status/1235715934158901248

    Within 4 days of the Trump Tower meeting being leaked to the media, Mueller’s FBI investigators interviewed a *key* witness who 100% backed up the account of
    @DonaldJTrumpJr
    & other participants

    No collusion or info exchanged, lasted a few mins, mostly about adoptions

    whembly (c30c83)

  62. whembly, that fits the definition of “disingenuous” to a T.

    We all know better, regardless of ones position on the Russia confluvium.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  63. @63

    whembly, that fits the definition of “disingenuous” to a T.

    We all know better, regardless of ones position on the Russia confluvium.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 3/6/2020 @ 6:06 pm

    How so?

    The FBI’s 302 here literally supports the campaign official’s recounting of that meeting…that it was a nothingburger.

    Are you saying it was all fabricated or the FBIs were lying arseholes?

    whembly (c30c83)

  64. DOJ to USA:

    In Barr We Trust; All Others, Strictly Bash.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  65. I’m saying that you’ve told a tiny fraction of the story. There was a history to the meeting. As well we all know.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  66. Within 4 days of the Trump Tower meeting being leaked to the media, Mueller’s FBI investigators interviewed a *key* witness who 100% backed up the account of @DonaldJTrumpJr

    Any witness to the meeting would have been a co-conspirator, no?

    It’s a bit like saying “Loretta Lynch 100% backed up Bill Clinton’s account of the tarmac meeting, so: nothingburger”.

    Or do you think Mueller interviewed a cleaning lady who was standing outside the door eavesdropping?

    Dave (1bb933)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1058 secs.