White House letter blasts Mueller report

[gratuitous]

Well, it appears the White House has gone from gleefully loving them some Mueller Report to high dudgeon:

MSN Story Here

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump has the right to instruct advisers not to testify before congressional oversight probes related to the Russia investigation, the White House said in a letter that blasts Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report as defective.

The April 19 letter from White House legal counsel Emmet Flood to Attorney General William Barr, obtained by Reuters on Thursday, was in line with Trump's confrontational approach to dealing with a Democratic effort to use the Mueller report as a springboard into more investigations.

* * *

Mueller produced "a prosecutorial curiosity — part 'truth commission' report and part law school exam paper," the letter said. "What prosecutors are supposed to do is complete an investigation and then either ask the grand jury to return an indictment or decline to charge the case," Flood wrote in his five-page letter to Barr.

"The Special Counsel and his staff failed in their duty to act as prosecutors and only as prosecutors," he said.

So, now Robert Mueller knows what the White House apparently really thinks of his efforts. I wonder if Flood's letter will get a rise at last out of the Special Counsel?

[NewJeffCT]

1. but

didn't Trump say that the Mueller report was complete and total exoneration? Should he care so much after that?

[DeminPennswoods]

2. Didn't the SCO completely exonerate him?

That's what Barr said. Why's Trump mad?

[malaise]

4. Hehehehehehehe - the spin did not work

The truth is out!! The Con has not been exonerated.

ITTMF!!

[Iliyah]

3. What is the date on the letter.

[gratuitous]

5. April 19 according to the story

Isn't that interesting?

[SunSeeker]

6. April 19. And I agree with it. Mueller should have rendered an opinion on obstruction. nt

[Iliyah]

7. Kinda hard to know since the full summaires have

not been provided.

[SunSeeker]

10. Vol. II was not redacted with regard to this issue. I read it.

It is infuriating. How Mueller could list all that evidence, then say it would be "unfair" to Trump to come to a conclusion, pisses me off to no end.

Yet he came to a conclusion in Vol. I., albeit an incorrect one, on conspiracy. How Mueller can claim what Russia gave Trump has no value is beyond me. Mueller bent over backwards to not find conspiracy.

[maxsolomon]

8. He did.

Essentially, it was "We can't indict. If we could clear him of Obstruction, we would. We're not clearing him."

[SunSeeker]

9. He should have said it explicitly so Barr could not then run with it. nt