world

Redacted Mueller report to be released within a week

25 Comments
By ERIC TUCKER and MARY CLARE JALONICK

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.


25 Comments
Login to comment

When you read the report, keep in mind that Mueller and his team were biased, corrupt, Soros-funded, Deep State agents.

You may be asking, "How could the report be credible if Mueller and his team were biased, corrupt, Soros-funded, Deep State agents?"

The answer: It cannot. Anyone that claimed Mueller and his team were biased, corrupt, Soros-funded, Deep State agents cannot expect to be taken seriously if the claim the report is credible.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

What’s taking so long? 

Congress should get the complete report because we need our elected officials to prepare for whatever challenges may appear if even part of this report is released and to plan for the dangers of which this report warns. 

This is primarily a national security report. Trump may be compromised. Our elected officials should respond immediately. What’s the hold up?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The law is the hold up. AG Barr was very clear in front of Congress about what can and can’t be released.

it was interesting to find out that he is not personally redacting the report, the Mueller lawyers are. Also interesting the he gave Mueller the opportunity to review his 4 page letter prior to release and Mueller declined.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

it was interesting to find out that he is not personally redacting the report, the Mueller lawyers are. Also interesting the he gave Mueller the opportunity to review his 4 page letter prior to release and Mueller declined.

We can't trust biased, corrupt Mueller and his team of 13 angry lawyers to properly redact a report that must lack credibility!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Nice try. mueller is your savior and he failed you. Can’t change teams now, you should have done that when people like me said they wouldn’t find anything.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@blacklaebl when people like me said they wouldn’t find anything.

Are you saying you've been privy to the investigation's inside info all along and now have read all 400 documents submitted by Mueller? It's interesting that Trump, the most dishonest politician in modern US history, has been able to attract so many like-minded followers.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Nice try. mueller is your savior and he failed you. Can’t change teams now, you should have done that when people like me said they wouldn’t find anything.

Lol, keep patting yourself on the back. Nobody else is going to do it for you! LOL

Regardless if the report contains anything worth mentioning after redacting it, the wise will still see Trump for what he is...a cheap, lying, conman.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The Dems are howling at the wind but have nothing to say. The hoax has run its course. Mueller says no collusion and he couldn’t even establish obstruction - obstruction of a crime that he admits never happened. Anyone who is gang rushed by a false charge is going to be angry about it - that’s all the Dems have on Trump for his supposed obstruction.

Now I would expect the tables to be turned sometime this Summer. What did Obama know and when did he know it? Did members of his administration unmasked American citizens illegally? Did Hillary and the DNC collude with Russia to disseminate foreign propaganda into the 2016 election? Did Hillary violate campaign finance laws by funneling money to Putin’s intelligence services to gather disinformation on the Trump campaign? Was this foreign sourced opposition research used to surveile the campaign of an American presidential candidate? Were there members of the DOJ and the FBI that were biased and used their positions in law enforcement to corrupt the election process? There are so many unanswered questions that it will likely take 2-4 years of investigation by a new Special Prosecutor to unravel it all. Must remember to stock-up on popcorn.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Barr said he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein decided that the evidence was insufficient to establish obstruction.

Wait, the same Rosenstein who was the ringleader behind the whole thing? He got right to the finish line then bailed?

Arighty.

Wolfpack: The hoax has run its course.

Well, not the prison sentences.

Now I would expect the tables to be turned sometime this Summer. What did Obama know and when did he know it? Did members of his administration unmasked American citizens illegally? Did Hillary and the DNC collude with Russia to disseminate foreign propaganda into the 2016 election? Did Hillary violate campaign finance laws by funneling money to Putin’s intelligence services to gather disinformation on the Trump campaign? Was this foreign sourced opposition research used to surveile the campaign of an American presidential candidate? Were there members of the DOJ and the FBI that were biased and used their positions in law enforcement to corrupt the election process? There are so many unanswered questions that it will likely take 2-4 years of investigation by a new Special Prosecutor to unravel it all. Must remember to stock-up on popcorn.

When your side has the conspiracy theorists, there will always be an investigation or something to investigate. It's endless. You could have mentioned Uranium One, Hillary's hit squad, The Clinton Foundation, The Ukraine, Seth Rich, just off the top of my head.

We had a dozen Benghazi investigations, then an email investigation that came from the Benghazi investigations, then an IG investigation into the email investigation that came from the Benghazi investigations. Next we will have an investigation into the FBI's investigation that lead to the Mueller investigation. Endless.

The left doesn't have that. We just have convictions in court and Trump's people in jail. That, to me at least, would be the better indicator of corruption.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Texas: collusion angle with the Ukrainians

Well, looks like Texas claimed that one. Next?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The dems came across as absolute fools at AG Barr's hearing. They acted like spoiled little brats who expected a pony on Christmas morning and instead got a bag of two-year-old horse hair.

Our U.S. Attorney General was the only adult in that room.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

There's going to be damaging information about Trump and obstruction of justice. You should be thinking of ways to justify ignoring that. Get ahead of the curve, as some would say.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Regardless if the report contains anything worth mentioning after redacting it, the wise will still see Trump for what he is...a cheap, lying, conman.

In other words... there was nothing that could have been done to convince you otherwise. We've wasted 2 years and buckets of money because your "feelz" told you something other than what the facts state and you feel entitled to access information you have no business having access to. Got it.

This is primarily a national security report. Trump may be compromised. Our elected officials should respond immediately. What’s the hold up?

Trump is not compromised. Give it up. This fantasy you're living isn't healthy.

What's the hold up? I can tell you exactly what the hold up is. The redaction is necessary because of sources, methods, etc., and the extremely high likelihood (more like a guarantee) that any number of deranged progressives would "leak" the document thereby damaging relationships, methods, etc.

You can deny it all you want, and I expect you to, but you're lying to yourself if you think any politician, especially those on the left, would consider the protection of that type of data more important than scoring some minor "hit" on the orange man.

The continued crazy behavior and statements from the (D)'s are only gonna make it more likely we get stuck with this narcissistic SOB again in 2020.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

SuperLibToday  11:35 am JST

There's going to be damaging information about Trump and obstruction of justice. -- comment

Which moral superior of yours told you that? CNN, MSNBC or the NYT?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

The answer: It cannot. Anyone that claimed Mueller and his team were biased, corrupt, Soros-funded, Deep State agents cannot expect to be taken seriously if the claim the report is credible

I disagree, I think and still believe Mueller and his angry Democrats were as foul and phony as a $3 bill, the main thing is, there was No collusion, never was, they knew it and they tried their best to get something on the President, that failed, the final report, nothing to say, but Trump was right all along, because they all knew whatever they had against the President was not anywhere beyond a reasonable doubt, which means, it wouldn’t hold up in a court of law.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Rep. Nita Lowey, the Democratic chairwoman of the House Appropriations Committee, said she was taken aback that Barr had reduced Mueller's report to a four-page letter in just two days. . . . "i would argue it's more suspicious than impressive," Lowey said. -- article

The chairwoman has a very short memory. Remember in late October 2016 when FBI Director Comey reopened the HRC email investigation after finding 100,000's of Hillary's emails on the laptop of "Carlos Danger", aka, Anthony Wiener? Only to close that investigation a mere two days later stating she was in the clear and could stand for election because nothing improper was found?

That, Rep. Lowery, is "more suspicious than impressive".

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I disagree, I think and still believe Mueller and his angry Democrats were as foul and phony as a $3 bill, the main thing is, there was No collusion, never was, they knew it and they tried their best to get something on the President, that failed, the final report, nothing to say, but Trump was right all along, because they all knew whatever they had against the President was not anywhere beyond a reasonable doubt, which means, it wouldn’t hold up in a court of law.

So you trust the findings of corrupt, biased people? Got it.

It now makes sense why you believe Trump despite him lying about where his own father was born.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

There are so many unanswered questions

Allow me to assist you:

Now I would expect the tables to be turned sometime this Summer. What did Obama know and when did he know it?

More than Trump ever will; since he was born.

Did members of his administration unmasked American citizens illegally?

No.

Did Hillary and the DNC collude with Russia to disseminate foreign propaganda into the 2016 election?

No.

Did Hillary violate campaign finance laws by funneling money to Putin’s intelligence services to gather disinformation on the Trump campaign?

No.

Was this foreign sourced opposition research used to surveile the campaign of an American presidential candidate?

No; such research does not exist.

Were there members of the DOJ and the FBI that were biased and used their positions in law enforcement to corrupt the election process?

No.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

So you trust the findings of corrupt, biased people? Got it.

No, I don’t trust them at all, I trust that there was nothing all along and said from the jump it’s a witch hunt.

It now makes sense why you believe Trump despite him lying about where his own father was born.

Not nearly as bad as a person hijacking and pretending to be a racial minority in order to beat the system and get a cheaper rate a college.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

An investigation which comes up with 30 plus arrests and or indictments could never be labelled a witch hunt which is when nothing, zero is found.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

No, I don’t trust them at all, I trust that there was nothing all along and said from the jump it’s a witch hunt.

Confirmation bias.

Not nearly as bad as a person hijacking and pretending to be a racial minority in order to beat the system and get a cheaper rate a college.

The difference is that Warren was told she was Native American, whereas Trump simply lied. Keep trying, Brass.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

zichiToday  06:00 pm JST

An investigation which comes up with 30 plus (sic) arrests and or (sic) indictments could never be labelled a witch hunt -- comment

Question: And how many of those "30-plus arrests and/or indictments" were directly linked to Russian collusion and/or obstruction?

Answer: Zero, zip, nada.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

An investigation which comes up with 30 plus arrests and or indictments could never be labelled a witch hunt which is when nothing, zero is found.

It was a witch hunt in regards to Trump colluding with the Russians, that’s been debunked and now officially sealed and over with.

The difference is that Warren was told she was Native American,

Yeah and I was told, I’m a liberal.

Nice try. Lol

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Not good enough.

Release the entire report.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Well, not the prison sentences.

You mean those prison sentences that had nothing to do with Russian collusion and the 2016 election? Those prison sentences? Fine with me - although you could make the case that all of these convictions were the result of an illegitimate investigation based on fraudulent evidence.

In fact the Attorney General states today that he is looking into the origins of the Russia non-collusion investigation and the actions of high level FBI officials. He also confirmed that the Trump campaign was spied on and that he is investigating whether it was an abuse or legitimate. That was sort of big news - not that MSNBC is going to get all that excited about it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites