Sure, I think we all agree that Mueller “did not establish a crime”, to borrow Lance Turbo’s phrasing. My question was: is that the only thing he concluded? The quote in Barr’s letter suggests to me that his findings were a bit broader than that. That’s why I asked “How did you determine that his findings were so narrow?”
Why do you ask that question? Where does Lance Turbo say that’s the only thing he concluded?
What did Barr’s letter say?
Where did you ask this?
See post #295
See post #294
See post #297
Feels like I’m wading into a spat here, but what are the chances the Mueller report is anything like the Starr report? Page after page of nasty, salacious detail, all of it the kinds of things consenting adults can do but, because CHARACTER!!!, of the utmost importance for a special investigator to discover in detail and publish for public examination?
Because I think it is going to be ~400 pages of criminal evidence and accusations, with the theme of each successive section bouncing between “evidence does not satisfy the threshold to indict,” to “judgement is suspended- lots of evidence, but we’re not going to lock him up for you, you have to impeach to get rid of him,” to “we’ve referred this one to one of over a dozen jurisdictions for further review.”
I’m curious if anyone honestly believes the Mueller report will be cover-to-cover folderol and poppycock the way the Starr report was.
The Mueller report will be neither like the Starr report nor what you are expecting. It will be like his indictment for Stone. It will include no hard evidence of collusion or Russia stuff, but plenty of that stuff in narrative form, with interspersed evidence of extraneous crimes like obstruction of justice.
If Google isn’t good enough for you, mere post numbers cannot possibly be good enough. You’ll have to quote the specific passage you think supports your claim.
Edit: especially since I did your work for you and looked at all of 295, and it absolutely doesn’t support your claim about it.
If you’re trying to make some point, you’re doing it poorly.
Wait for it…
Wait for it…
Har de har har, remember when Trump said that he wouldn’t mind if the report was just simply released? Har, har what a liar. (But you already knew that.) Now the House Judiciary Committee is left with having to resort to issuing subpoenas to read the damn thing. Trump and his Republican enablers want so badly for you, taxpayer, to not know what the report says that this is likely to end up before the Supreme court. Oh yeah, Trump wouldn’t mind if it was released, but the House Judiciary must wait for a redacted version. What a (typical) crock of Trump bullshit.
Speaking of “wait for it”, the subpoenas seem premature to me, as do the calls for a “National Day of Action” (I assume they mean smashing some windows and lighting some things on fires, but we’ll see tomorrow I guess).
Would it be such a national tragedy if we (collectively, not talking about bobot specifically) actually waited until mid-April before throwing tantrums about the release of the report?
It’s true - we need more time for the right-wing lies about the report to become fully embedded before we let anyone actually see it.
We need two more weeks of pretending, “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” means that Mueller found no evidence of collusion despite the fact that hard evidence of collusion is publicly available and we know Mueller looked at it.
Don’t worry, you guys have the NYT, WaPo and CNN on your side. I’m sure they’ll help you push a favorable narrative along.
Or they could get some nitrate fertilizer, make a few bombs, rent a few vans… or just set up sniper positions on overpasses to look for police officers. 
Here’s a thought: why do we need to wait? Then we won’t need a “favorable narrative.” We’ll know. Unless you don’t want to know…
You mean the side of objective reality?
I know it’s confusing when you get all of your information from the right wing fever swamp. It makes it difficult to be able to evaluate what is and isn’t reality.
Ultimately, there will be only one narrative - the truth - and it’s not going to be one you will like.
AG Barr explained why. Did you read his letter?
I haven’t laughed at the Republican party this much since James Ihofe brought his pet snowball to work. I see no reason to credit Barr’s statements with having any value whatsoever.
Such blustery confidence. Kind of reminds me of the things your side said during the Meuller investigation.
I have the same blustery confidence you do. Time will tell which of us is right.