It's over with, get the massage. Congress need to address: the border Wall,
new immigration laws, a reciprocal trade policy, healthcare policy, etc.. Do
some real work for the American people!!!! Or (Trump in 2020 - vote out
If Devin Nunes is such a great and patriotic American, why did Devin Nunes'
Mom say so many devastating things about him on twitter?
@Mad HatterDevan Nunes did NOT try to "intervene" in the
Mueller probe to protect President Trump.Representative Nunes is a
great and patriotic American whose good name and reputation should not be
impugned.Too bad we don't have more like him in Congress.
Some Democrats now claiming that AG Barr should resign.If anyone
should resign, it should start with Adam Schiff and Eric Swallwell (sp).Those two keep claiming that they have such damaging information re
President Trump but they won't tell us what it is.What a
joke.Don't think they could possibly have anything that rises
to the "collusive" efforts of the Clinton campaign re that fake dossier.
This report is a perfect setup for Congress to go investigate and try to impeach
on pretty arguable intent to commit obstruction. Everything they
need to get going in depth is detailed. Mueller has it all laid out, the AG had
his whack at spinning it and not Congress can pick it up and proceed. Mueller
et al did a nice job of keeping things objective and stated with their
reservations and bases. Savvy guy Mueller. History will treat him
well for his team's work.(republican guy, didn't vote for
Trump or Clinton).
The release today is the 1st course in what is going to be a many, many course
mail. Time to be ready to pick up the next fork in when Congressional
investigation gets plated up.
Too bad our elected folks in Congress can't put forth just HALF the effort
to protect our borders and national sovereignty as they do chasing
"collusion" ghosts.When will they start doing what they were
elected to do?I, for one, did not vote for "Sherlock
Where is Julian Assange when we really need him?!
@WeThePeople,Why can't we believe "our Leader?" Because
he's an established pathological liar. Why would you believe anything
Donald Trump says? Even if you're a supporter who likes what he does, you
have to recognize that he has never, nor will ever, but a trustworthy person.
It's a shame that this report is still an issue. Why can't our nation
believe our Leader, when he tells us the report exonerates him? I trust
Trump!But if anyone is going to look into these unfair and
unwholesome claims, I trust Rep. Stewart. He, like President Trump, is a true
Conservative, and a righteous Man.
NoNamesAccepted wrote: "Obviously, never-Trumpers have their minds made up
and facts no longer matter. One can disagree with Trump's policies
regardless of whether he committed crimes. But can you emotionally admit he is
innocent?"Seems to be it's the Trumpers who have their
minds made up. We haven't seen the report. We don't know everything.
It's the facts we want. Fact do matter to us. We already know an awful lot
of questionable things that went on with Trump and co. We already know Trump
lied a lot about Russia. We know his people lied, too. Why did they lie if they
weren't doing anything wrong?I think it's the Trump
supporters who have a problem admitting anything about Trump, tbh.
Stewart needs to remember his loyalty needs to be to his country first before
party or Trump. In the end this is the only loyalty which matters for the
survival of our country and democracy.
We have one interminable obfuscation from Trump and Stewart.
Stewart said he expects Democrats, who have been "vested in the this story
and have been for a couple of years," to look to "exaggerate" part
of the report to hurt Trump.Unlike the GOP who are "vested in
the this story and have been for a couple of years," to look to
"bury" all of the report.
NoNamesAccepted - St. George, UTApril 17, 2019 8:20 p.m."But let me ask a simple and crucial question. Is there any amount of
information that will persuade you to concede that Trump did not collude with
the Russians, did not obstruct justice?"There are two things to
consider in response to your question. First, it has been discussed, and I
acknowledge, that a sitting president cannot be indicted according to the DOJ.
Although I may not like that decision placing a sitting president above the law,
it factors into all that is being discussed here.The second is the
requirement of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" which can be a problem
in even the most high-profile murder case. However, there has always been the
question of whether Republicans could get behind an impeachment investigation
considering the popularity Donald Trump enjoys with Republican voters. Many
don't want to face a primary because they choose to do something unpopular
with the base.The collusion (conspiracy) charge always appeared very
difficult to attain since much of what we saw with Russian interference appeared
to be the Russian government working on behalf of Trump . . . [more]1 of 2
2 of 2 [continued] . . . without a direct request by
the Trump campaign. Although there have been multiple interviews and
indictments/convictions for Russian contacts, the man most knowledgeable about
collusion, Paul Manafort, chose to go to prison rather than testify. There was
no credible evidence in various news reports to suggest that Trump or his
campaign staff actually sat down with Russian officials and plan out a strategy
to help get him elected. Perhaps the Russians did it all with the expectation of
getting favorable treatment from a friendly client, and Trump wanted help but
without acknowledging that help. We would need other corroborating evidence,
maybe from Russian players and their communications with the Trump campaign. So
I have my doubts, but I can accept the result, just as I did for O.J.
Simpson.The obstruction case is more complex. I believe there was
deliberate obstruction of justice beginning with the James Comey firing. But
because Mueller refused to issue an indictment, I want to see the report.
That's important. If Mueller said Trump committed obstruction, he would be
compelled to indict him which he couldn't. So it's left to the voters
@Impartial7: "All members of Congress with sufficient security clearances
should see the entire redacted report."Under law, grand jury
testimony is sealed from all external review unless a judge releases it.Now, I've said for well over a year that if the Mueller report
finds credible evidence of working with Russia to alter our election, then Trump
must resign or be impeached. Ditto if there is credible evidence of Trump
obstructing justice. It is clear to me that evidence simply doesn't
exist.But let me ask a simple and crucial question. Is there any
amount of information that will persuade you to concede that Trump did not
collude with the Russians, did not obstruct justice?If judicial
approval is obtained, and the unredacted report is given to cleared members of
both parties, and they concede there isn't sufficient evidence for them to
take any action against Trump, will you admit you have been wrong in this
regard?If not, why bother to release any of it. Obviously,
never-Trumpers have their minds made up and facts no longer matter.One can disagree with Trump's policies regardless of whether he committed
crimes. But can you emotionally admit he is innocent?
Chris Stewart is only a member of the House Intelligence Committee and will be
allowed to see much of the Mueller report as the article states. However, Adam
Schiff and Devan Nunes, Chair and Ranking Member, have called that the entire
report be given to them without redaction.This is an unusual move
from Nunes since he was instrumental in getting highly secret FBI interview and
FISA court records released to the intelligence committee when he was chairman
and trying to intervene in the Mueller probe on behalf of Donald Trump. This
activity by Nunes obviously set a precedent about secrecy within the DOJ that
runs counter to what William Barr is trying to re-establish. Any judge called
upon to consider what should and what should not be redacted in the reports will
look at this precedent and possibly request that certain redactions violate the
people's right to know.As we have seen over the past two years,
Trump prefers to work in a world of secrecy. Everything he does is kept from the
public unless it is favorable to him. Controlling the message helps to cover-up
wrong doing and relieves him from responsibility. The "exoneration" that
Trump claims may not be in the report.
There is absolutely no reason any information should be withheld from any member
of the House Intelligence Committee. These congressional members are privileged
to see any information due to the nature of their work responsibilities. This
includes anything dealing with national security and grand jury testimony if a
judge rules to allow it. Although William Barr said he would not seek a
judge's approval to release grand jury testimony, it had be customary for
an AG to request this approval as a matter of course for specific House
committees.Foot-dragging by the AG, after identifying four general
areas for redaction, appears to be more to appease Donald Trump and his desire
to hide anything that might implicate him in violating the public trust than
simple operation under the law. However, it appears that the full report,
unredacted, except for some very critical parts dealing with national security
and methods and perhaps on-going investigations, will come out as lawsuits begin
to be filed.As the public sees more of a potential cover-up, there
will be pressure to follow Robert Mueller's original plan to release his
team's findings with minimal redactions.
I don't believe Rep. Stewart can be trusted to excercise honesty or good
judgment in this matter. He seems to put hyperpartisan loyalty to the President
above all else.
As others have pointed out, there are portions of the full report that must not
be made public lest intelligence sources be endangered, tactics be compromised,
or innocent 3rd parties be unfairly smeared. Rep. Stewart has succinctly and
clearly explained this. Sad thing is, far too many members of
congress, far too many executive branch employees, have taken it as their
mission to damage President Trump in any way possible and so justify violation
of their legal obligation to hold certain information confidential. Whatever the
whole congress gets, will be spun and leaked.The members of the
intel committees have clearances and have been proven trustworthy. They--not
their staff, but they alone--should see a nearly un-redacted report. As Stewart
reminds us, even these officials are not entitled to see certain aspects of
Grand Jury testimony.If there were evidence of collusion or other
treasonous activity, Mueller would have already released that one way or other.
If there were sufficient evidence of obstruction to consider indictment or
impeachment, that would be public.We caught some tax cheats and some
guys who lied about otherwise legal activites. Good.Move on.
I’m afraid no matter how much is given, there will be requests for more.
It’s time to move on, Congress.
All members of Congress with sufficient security clearances should see the
entire redacted report. Anything less is a cover up. What is trump so afraid of?