Mueller report released to the Attorney General

**blah3** · 03-26-2019, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by cjandrze

https://www.businessinsider.com/mcco...-report-2019-3

Any thoughts on why McConnell would not want the full report released?

I feel like if its not released it just opens up talking points from the MSM regarding "what they are trying to hide". Why even let it happen, get the report out there so MSM doesn't have a chance to spin their lies any longer.

The truth is in the report and McConnell seems to want to hide it for some reason.

Because Grand Jury proceedings are supposed to remain confidential. Cause it's not proper for the Justice Dept. to 'smear' people whom they don't find enough evidence to charge with a crime. (kinda like what Comey did)

**cjandrze** · 03-26-2019, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by blah3

Because Grand Jury proceedings are supposed to remain confidential. Cause it's not proper for the Justice Dept. to 'smear' people whom they don't find enough evidence to charge with a crime. (kinda like what Comey did)

Then why was McConnell for letting it be public before he read it? If its not right its not right, I get that.

But it was right to go public in his eyes until he read the report, then it wasn't right after he read the report....

That's a bit shady.

This is coming from someone that never thought this report would matter at all, FYI. I never believed this would be anything useful.

**NCRAVEN** · 03-26-2019, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by cjandrze

Then why was McConnell for letting it be public before he read it? If its not right its not right, I get that.

But it was right to go public in his eyes until he read the report, then it wasn't right after he read the report....

That's a bit shady.

This is coming from someone that never thought this report would matter at all, FYI. I never believed this would be anything useful.

He didn't say that he wanted the report public. He said he wanted "as much openness and transparency as possible".

Also, I don't think anyone in congress has read it. So I don't believe he wanted it released, read it then changed his mind is an accurate description of what happened.

**cjandrze** · 03-26-2019, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

He didn't say that he wanted the report public. He said he wanted "as much openness and transparency as possible"..

Semantics

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

Also, I don't think anyone in congress has read it. So I don't believe he wanted it released, read it then changed his mind is an accurate description of what happened.

Something changed his mind.

**Ortizer** · 03-26-2019, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

He didn't say that he wanted the report public. He said he wanted "as much openness and transparency as possible".

Also, I don't think anyone in congress has read it. So I don't believe he wanted it released, read it then changed his mind is an accurate description of what happened.

Yeah. Saw something where the house was trying to get doj to turn it over

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

**NCRAVEN** · 03-26-2019, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by cjandrze

Semantics

Because you want to have said he wants the report public doesn't make it so. It's two different statements

Originally Posted by cjandrze

Something changed his mind.

Only if it's true he wanted it public to begin with, that's not what he said.

**NCRAVEN** · 03-26-2019, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by Ortizer

Yeah. Saw something where the house was trying to get doj to turn it over

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

Part of hopes they make it public so this whole thing goes away. But at the same time, there has been enough smearing of all the people involved in this that I don't think their lives need to be in the public anymore than it already has been.

**BPF2** · 03-26-2019, 10:20 AM

Left just keeps grasping at straws. Not prepared to say no collusion unless they get to read the entire report. And of course, it will have to be heavily redacted, so how can they really say for sure since it's not the entire report? And now the shift of focus to obstruction of justice. How can you obstruct justice in a case where no crime was committed?

I think Adam Schiff should be charged with obstruction of justice. He has stated several times publicly that he has clear evidence of collusion. Never mind that Mueller with 2 years, a team of biased investigative attorneys, and hundreds of subpoenas couldn't find evidence of collusion. Schiff has clear evidence. So why hasn't he provided that evidence to the investigators? Isn't withholding evidence obstruction of justice?

**cjandrze** · 03-26-2019, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

Part of hopes they make it public so this whole thing goes away. But at the same time, there has been enough smearing of all the people involved in this that I don't think their lives need to be in the public anymore than it already has been.

Wouldn't this being released exonerate everyone except those that have already been indicted?

Maybe I'm being naïve or missing something (if so, please get me up to speed), but everyone that could get in trouble from this report has already been taken care of, why not let it be public then. We already know about the people who got caught up in some shit.

Everyone else would be shown to have no involvement in any of this horseshit.

**WrongBaldy** · 03-26-2019, 10:47 AM

id def release a report that would exonerate me 100% LOL
transparency baby

**NCRAVEN** · 03-26-2019, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by cjandrze

Wouldn't this being released exonerate everyone except those that have already been indicted?

Maybe I'm being naïve or missing something (if so, please get me up to speed), but everyone that could get in trouble from this report has already been taken care of, why not let it be public then. We already know about the people who got caught up in some shit.

Everyone else would be shown to have no involvement in any of this horseshit.

Well the thing is, there is no horseshit to be involved in. It was ALL made up by a rival political opponent.

So any information released that painted people in a negative light at this point wouldn't be fair as there was no crime to charge them with.

That was the purpose of the investigation, it didn't charge anyone with anything relating to it's purpose, that should be all the evidence we need.

**CarrollCoRaven** · 03-26-2019, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by BPF2

Left just keeps grasping at straws. Not prepared to say no collusion unless they get to read the entire report. And of course, it will have to be heavily redacted, so how can they really say for sure since it's not the entire report? And now the shift of focus to obstruction of justice. How can you obstruct justice in a case where no crime was committed?

I think Adam Schiff should be charged with obstruction of justice. He has stated several times publicly that he has clear evidence of collusion. Never mind that Mueller with 2 years, a team of biased investigative attorneys, and hundreds of subpoenas couldn't find evidence of collusion. Schiff has clear evidence. So why hasn't he provided that evidence to the investigators? Isn't withholding evidence obstruction of justice?

Mueller purposefully left the obstruction decision inconclusive and up to Barr for the sole purpose of giving the Democrats a way to continue their bullshit, and allow the Dems and MSM to continue the narrative. It was Mueller's job, after spending $25 million and over 2 years to come up with a conclusion himself. In their warped minds, Barr is not using Mueller's findings correctly because he was appointed by Trump, continuing to play to their base of Trump haters.