Mueller Report Said to Exceed 300 Pages, So . . . What? By Andrew C. McCarthy

[mystery-ak]

   Mueller Report Said to Exceed 300 Pages, So . . . What?
By Andrew C. McCarthy

March 28, 2019 3:08 PM

There’s no reason to doubt that Attorney General Barr has faithfully described the report’s conclusions.

The New York Times is reporting that the Mueller report “exceeds 300 pages” in length. That information is attributed to unidentified “American officials with knowledge of” the matter. If “exceeds 300 pages” means something close to 300 pages, it is less than I would have bet on.

Of course, “exceeds 300 pages” could mean lots more than 300 pages. The Times notes that Fox’s Andrew Napolitano has claimed the report is 700 pages long (his basis for saying so is not clear). The paper also reminds us that Ken Starr’s Clinton-Lewinsky report was 445 pages long, last year’s inspector-general report on the Clinton emails investigation was 500 pages, and the 9/11 Commission report was 567.

Meanwhile, Politico reports that Attorney General Bill Barr has told House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerrold Nadler (D., N.Y.) how long the report is. Nadler has not revealed the number of pages; he has just said it is “very substantial.” When asked whether that means fewer than a thousand pages, Nadler replied, “I would think so.” He added that Barr would not commit to the April 2 deadline House Democrats would like to impose.

Of course, page counts can be much ado about nothing. But the Times and the Democrats seem determined to make something out of them, suggesting that, since Attorney General Barr’s letter about Mueller’s report was only four pages (although the Gray Lady allows that these pages were “dense”), this “raises questions about what Barr might have left out.”

Jim Geraghty has an excellent analysis of this claim in today’s Morning Jolt. The argument that a lengthy report implies deception in Barr’s summary seems silly to me. Almost all lengthy reports come with an executive summary that is, at most, just a few pages long. Lengthy books are routinely and representatively reviewed in just a few hundred words. The attorney general did not undertake to summarize Mueller’s full report; the purpose of his letter was to succinctly state Mueller’s principal conclusions. There is no reason to believe that could not be accurately done in four pages.

more
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/robert-mueller-report-said-to-exceed-300-pages-so-what/

[rustynail]

Are there pictures?

[Jazzhead]

Let's not forget, shall we, the words of Janet Reno,  Bill Clinton's attorney general,  objecting to the release of the full Starr report to Congress and the public:

We believe that information obtained during a criminal investigation should, in almost all cases, be made public only if there is an indictment and prosecution, not in lengthy and detailed reports filed after a decision has been made not to prosecute.  The final report provides a forum for unfairly airing a target's dirty laundry. 

The Dems,  of course, care not a whit for national security but rather for any dirt that can be used to embarrass the President.  Nothing they do is predicated on good faith or with the objective to permit the nation to heal following a two-year ordeal - based on fiction -  questioning the patriotism of a duly-elected President.   They want to pick, and pick again, at scabs until the entire body politic is infected with their hate and division.   

[Fishrrman]

The Rusty Nail asked:
"Are there pictures?"

Yes.
Here's one:

[Cyber Liberty]

I think Mueller loaded the report with sections that will require redactions that will allow the Rats to suggest they are "embarrassing to Trump."

IOW...Poison pills.