"The report is much worse than this."

[Qutzupalotl]

From LA Times colunist/Slate writer/MSNBC contributor Virginia Heffernen on twitter:

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1109881090339155968.html

[Iliyah]

1. This I believe!

DOJ Barr just covered up Mueller's report. Bad, bad, bad.

[Qutzupalotl]

8. Meanwhile, Ken Dilanian is tweeting

that this is a “total exoneration” for Trump ... even though Barr’s letter says the exact fucking opposite of that.

[oasis]

27. I've suspected Ken Dilanian of being a secret Trumpiod. He can't

contain his joy.

[defacto7]

2. Who is she and how would she know?

A columnist and news contributer wouldn't know any more than anyone else what's in the report.

[dewsgirl]

4. She works for Slate, she is often the host of Trumpcast. Very reliable.

[defacto7]

6. Ok, thank you. But still how could she know?

Even congress doesn't know.

[dewsgirl]

13. She says she has a reliable source. She is a reputable

reporter.

[moonscape]

15. I hope this source, who knows the report,

does a patriotic thing and leaks it to Congress

[customerserviceguy]

17. For all we know

her source could be a Trump mole on Mueller's team, the same one that caused Trump to look so smug from Friday to today.

We've been played.

[triron]

18. Or in the DOJ.

[customerserviceguy]

19. Would the DOJ

have been privy to the goings-on at Mueller's offices? Or are you suggesting that some Evelyn Woods speedreader went through the whole Mueller report as soon as his office handed it over to the AG on Friday, for Trump to have been given the inside knowledge that he'd be OK come Monday morning?

My best guess is that someone inside Mueller's office leaked this to the White House, right after their job on the team disappeared.

[triron]

20. Your guess sounds more likely. Maybe the source is even Rosenstein? It's possible.

After all he's about to leave the DOJ.

[customerserviceguy]

21. A mole is a mole

no matter how high or low they are in an organization. But I doubt that Rosenstein would take a chance on blowing smoke up a reporter's behind. Some minor character, maybe not even a lawyer, might be this reporter's "source".

People believe what they want to hear, whether it's true or not.

[dewsgirl]

28. She says it's a good source. She isn't a loon that goes

around claiming she knows stuff. I've followed her, listened to Trumpcast since this nightmare began.

[customerserviceguy]

29. You don't have to be a loon

to be deceived by someone posing as your "friend" who really wants to lead you down the garden path towards looking foolish when the cards are all on the table.

[triron]

30. I doubt this reporter would be so easily misled.

Why do you try to undermine this?

[customerserviceguy]

31. Because

I've had my hopes dashed so many times in the last three years. I guess I tend towards pessimism on things that I can't do anything about.

I've never heard of this reporter before, and I have no idea who the source might be, or their motivations, so I tend to dismiss it. Time to move on from the denial stage, and get to the acceptance stage, where energy can be expended towards our nominee. In the last few days, I've read a few more things about Pete Buttigieg that cause me to think that he'll liven up the process of picking out a nominee rather than just simply being an overambitious politician who is simply trying to get name recognition for 2024 or 2028.

That's where I choose to place my hope, instead of clinging to the straws of obscure reporters and mysterious sources.

[LanternWaste]

34. I keep hearing that, but it's never supported by objective evidence.

"We've been played..."

I keep hearing that, but it's never supported by objective evidence. Bumper-sticker-opinions don't concern me as they're simply visceral reactions reflecting the bumper more than anything else.

[customerserviceguy]

36. Ok, then

wait for the Mueller report to come out. It shouldn't take more than a couple of weeks, during which time Trump will continue to do assholish things, and we will still have a pre-primary season that most Americans will not be paying any attention to.

[hughee99]

37. Personally, I've never found anyone associated with Slate to be reliable,

But that doesn’t mean she’s wrong.

[uponit7771]

3. How good of a source is she?

[dewsgirl]

5. She is a writer for Slate. Often hosts Trumpcast. Reliable.

[NotAPuppet]

7. Well, then maybe her source needs to start

spilling the beans. Little cryptic messages won’t be sufficient.

What’s in the report?

[trueblue2007]

9. i still think Donald Rump is guilty of Treason.

[triron]

10. I do too.

[triron]

11. knr

[triron]

12. kick again

[triron]

14. knr

[MontanaMama]

16. Kick.

🤞

[Takket]

22. I need a little more than "trust me it is bad" to be believable

[OliverQ]

23. Who is this person and why should we believe them?

Why would Mueller let Barr release a summary that protects Trump if Mueller knows it's false?

[Qutzupalotl]

24. Mueller was not consulted on Barr's letter

per Andrea Mitchell.

[OliverQ]

25. Correct, but what makes us think

Mueller's report is actually extremely damaging?

[Qutzupalotl]

26. The number of crimes in plain sight in public reporting.

One assumes Mueller knows even more. We know he has farmed out investigations to other jurisdictions, by some counts as high as 19 venues.

I’m posting this not because I know or trust the source (I don’t), but to reiterate that this ain’t over. Barr may spin, but Mueller can describe actions in full detail if he so chooses. So it’s the report, and subsequent investigations, not Barr’s letter that will be consequential in the long run.

[Javaman]

32. where is our modern Daniel Ellsberg when we need one? nt

[Ilsa]

33. It's past time for someone on Mueller's team

or in the DOJ to copy and hand out the report to WaPo, NYTimes, and other publications.

[Azathoth]

35. Apparently it wasn't bad enough to, you know, charge anyone nt

[cbdo2007]

38. To her credit...the first tweets came out before we saw the Barr "summary"

and she clearly states, "Word of caution: this is NOT Mueller's report" because she seemed to know it was going to be heavily spun, and that everyone was going to freak out.

I think she is correct that the actual report is much worse, which is why Barr/Trump are trying to write their narrative first.

Like others have said, I bet it hedges on those terms "Russian Government" vs non-government Russian officials, which is who he truly colluded with, and which it likely says in the Report.

Now they are spinning like crazy to find a way to use Executive Privilege to make sure the rest of the report is never released, so we need someone to make sure it IS released.