The Mueller Report. BREAKING NEWS: AG’s Summary Report Released. NO COLLUSION!

[njbuff]

11 minutes ago, row_33 said:

This is why people have total contempt for politicians. A woman reading a cue card for the first time and pretending to care about the contents is a poor display for government.

 

It is exactly why Trump was voted in to office. 

 

Swing voters wanted someone who wasn't the usual DC stuff shirt and Trump was that.

 

And it that is why these politicians and the sheep constituents continue to lose their minds to this day.

 

"Orange man bad" narrative has turned to "Barr bad" narrative.

 

These stupid people don't realize that during this venom being spewed in Trump's direction (and now Barr)........................ that the swing voter is going to be voting for Trump again in 2020, EASILY.

 

Shouldn't that be the Democrats number one concern.......... getting that swing vote back on their side?

[Taro T]

7 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

i am totally lost on your argument..and i do want to understand what you believe.Transcript below from04/09

 

Crist: "Reports have emerged recently, general, that members of the special counsel’s team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24 letter, that it does not adequately or accurately, necessarily, portray the report’s findings. Do you know what they’re referencing with that?"

Barr: "No, I don’t. I think, I suspect that they probably wanted more put out. But in my view, I was not interested in putting out summaries or trying to summarize because I think any summary — regardless of who prepares it — not only runs the risk of being underinclusive or overinclusive but also would trigger a lot of discussion and analysis that really should await everything coming out at once."

The Democratic senators quoted that exchange at several points in the May 1 hearing. Barr’s explanation for not disclosing the letter was artful — he pointed out that Crist asked him about Mueller’s team, not Mueller himself.

"

 

 

I mean it is black and white no? what is there to argue?

 

 

It may be technical, but on 04/09, he claims to not know if Muellars team has issues, and on 05/01, he claims he believes letter on 03/27 was snitty and penned by Muellars team.. I just truly don't understand where the argument is

 

dude lied at some point..take your pick where

 

 

 

 

Or, back on April 9, he was stating that since he believed his letter to Congress was accurate and adequate that he didn't know what members of Mueller's team considered to be inaccurate or inadequate about his release.  He was asked if he knew what the Mueller staffers considered "not adequately or accurately" addressed in his summary of the report.  He stated he did not.  Again, he considered what he wrote to be adequate and accurate, or else he wouldn't have written it.

 

He used weasel words ahead of stating that they wanted their summaries released and he had no intention of doing that, but he did in fact state they wanted the summaries released back on April 9.

 

And this is what the D's are trying to bury him with.  He said he didn't know what Mueller's staffers thought was specifically wrong with his summary but that they "probably" wanted their summary released as well.  (Again, weasel word as probably includes certainly.)  And that 2 page memo from Mueller doesn't state what he/his team believes to be inaccurate, just that their summaries were perfect in characterizing the full report and as such they should have been released immediately.  

 

Not seeing his initial answer as a lie, and not seeing his responses to Hirono or Blumenthal as lies either.  Maybe his response to one of the others was?

[snafu]

8 hours ago, GG said:

Of course his response was technical because he knew they were setting up a trap.  That's why their argument is hollow.  They asked the wrong question and are now trying to hang him for an answer to a totally unrelated question (as far as the law goes)

 

This is not about a semantics debate on a message board.  It's about whether he lied under the legal code.  It's clear that he did not because they can't even frame him properly.  

 

Now that Dems are out of bullets do you think that Barr or Trump will be benevolent when it's their turn in 2 weeks?

 

PS - what do you think is way worse - Barr slipping away with a technicality on an improperly worded question or the Dems intentionally  setting up a perjury trap on something that’s totally inconsequential to a 2 year investigation that yielded nothing?

 

^^^^^^^^^^

Not only will the issue of lying to Congress come down on Barr’s side (it will never get that far) the whole issue is transparent  manufactured outrage. It has a chilling effect on witnesses, and it cheapens the goal of looking for truth.  Who’d want to come before Congress to answer questions if they’re going to parse every phrase of answers they don’t want to hear.  Congress shouldn’t be in the business of setting traps for witnesses at all.  Not ever.  

 

And @plenzmd1

The fact that Barr’s letter says what the executive summaries said in fewer words makes the Mueller letter come across as whining.  What was Barr’s motivation for lying? Was it to downplay the SC team’s reaction to Barr’s initial letter? Was it to cover up his intentional mischaracterization of the report’s conclusions?  If those are the reasons, then this is all b.s. since the executive summaries were released as part of the report a week later.  I haven’t heard any other explanations for Barr’s motivation in answering the way he did. Barr said it himself — once Mueller made his report, his job was done.  Whining or complaining about what Barr does with the report is exactly just that. I’m not trying to get into why Barr answered that Q on 4/9, but sounds like to me he was talking like a guy who (a) didn’t give a rats ass about Mueller’s letter, and (b) knew that the summaries were in the report already.

 

 

 

 

 

[plenzmd1]

13 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

^^^^^^^^^^

Not only will the issue of lying to Congress come down on Barr’s side (it will never get that far) the whole issue is transparent  manufactured outrage. It has a chilling effect on witnesses, and it cheapens the goal of looking for truth.  Who’d want to come before Congress to answer questions if they’re going to parse every phrase of answers they don’t want to hear.  Congress shouldn’t be in the business of setting traps for witnesses at all.  Not ever.  

 

And @plenzmd1

The fact that Barr’s letter says what the executive summaries said in fewer words makes the Mueller letter come across as whining.  What was Barr’s motivation for lying? Was it to downplay the SC team’s reaction to Barr’s initial letter? Was it to cover up his intentional mischaracterization of the report’s conclusions?  If those are the reasons, then this is all b.s. since the executive summaries were released as part of the report a week later.  I haven’t heard any other explanations for Barr’s motivation in answering the way he did. Barr said it himself — once Mueller made his report, his job was done.  Whining or complaining about what Barr does with the report is exactly just that. I’m not trying to get into why Barr answered that Q on 4/9, but sounds like to me he was talking like a guy who (a) didn’t give a rats ass about Mueller’s letter, and (b) knew that the summaries were in the report already.

 

 

 

 

 

the issue is not what is motivation was, the issue is that it appears to be abundantly clear he lied to Congress on either 04/09, or 05/01.

 

Quote

Reports have emerged recently, general, that members of the special counsel’s team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24 letter, that it does not adequately or accurately, necessarily, portray the report’s findings. Do you know what they’re referencing with that?"

Barr: "No, I don’t. 

 

If you want to claim he thought that letter that was sent on the 27th was sent by Mueller, and that he did not know what members of his Mueallrs team thought, then that is a direct contradiction to 05/01 when he said be believed someone on Muellars team wrote the letter.

 

I mean it is the record..i just do not understand how it can be disputed.

 

Now, it may be a little white lie, and I know that the environment Trump has legitimized is little white lies don't matter..but under oath, to the Congress..some may see that as a big deal. 

 

And to clear, that is the "lie" Pelosi is going to war on. Claim it silly, claim it just a small footnote to the larger issue( i think that way BTW)..but it is accurate he lied under oath.

Edited May 3, 2019 by plenzmd1

[3rdnlng]

3 hours ago, njbuff said:

The Dumbs are tripling down on their hate for the AG because they know Barr is a no nonsense guy and he is going to lay the hammer down on these criminals.

 

I find ig quite laughable that these Democrats tell the American people that Barr is a hack for President Trump when Barr was AG under the President that hates Trump more than anybody.

 

As a poster mentioned earlier.................. what a shytshow. 

Barr was AG for Bush 41. While he may have hated Trump at one time, he doesn't anymore.

 

The democrats are going after Barr because they know he will soon be shaking their world up with not only indictments, but the subsequent political consequences look to have the republicans most likely end up with the Senate, House and Presidency. In addition, the present clown show that thinks they have a chance to win the presidency is trying to impress their leftist base. The democrats only chance is to give Barr the Trump treatment that's been going on for the last 3 years. If they can somehow diminish Barr they think they might diminish his ability to indict without it looking political. They truly are clowns and are living up to expectations.

 

 

[3rdnlng]

3 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

@Foxx, the issue is not what is motivation was, the issue is that it appears to be abundantly clear he lied to Congress on either 04/09, or 05/01.

 

 

If you want to claim he thought that letter that was sent on the 27th was sent by Mueller, and that he did not know what members of his Mueallrs team thought, then that is a direct contradiction to 05/01 when he said be believed someone on Muellars team wrote the letter.

 

I mean it is the record..i just do not understand how it can be disputed.

 

Now, it may be a little white lie, and I know that the environment Trump has legitimized is little white lies don't matter..but under oath, to the Congress..some may see that as a big deal. 

 

And to clear, that is the "lie" Pelosi is going to war on. Claim it silly, claim it just a small footnote to the larger issue( i think that way BTW)..but it is accurate he lied under oath.

So, Barr's belief that someone on Mueller's team may have wrote the letter is a contradiction to him saying that he didn't know what members of Mueller's team thought? Not only is your premise just flat out legally wrong, if the democrats want to make an issue of Barr not releasing Mueller's summaries when Mueller wanted him to, then they are doing nothing more than howling at the moon.

[SoCal Deek]

People are tossing around the word ‘lie’ a bit too much these days. Not phrasing an answer the exact way that a question is asked is not a lie.

[row_33]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

People are tossing around the word ‘lie’ a bit too much these days. Not phrasing an answer the exact way that a question is asked is not a lie.

 

Look.... them Dems and media have bent the knee to Bill and Hillary for over 25 years, they have no idea what truth is any more after those two have basically lied every time they opened their mouth

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, row_33 said:

 

Look.... them Dems and media have bent the knee to Bill and Hillary for over 25 years, they have no idea what truth is any more after those two have basically lied every time they opened their mouth

What is the definition of “is” anyway? ?

[snafu]

18 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

the issue is not what is motivation was, the issue is that it appears to be abundantly clear he lied to Congress on either 04/09, or 05/01.

 

 

If you want to claim he thought that letter that was sent on the 27th was sent by Mueller, and that he did not know what members of his Mueallrs team thought, then that is a direct contradiction to 05/01 when he said be believed someone on Muellars team wrote the letter.

 

I mean it is the record..i just do not understand how it can be disputed.

 

Now, it may be a little white lie, and I know that the environment Trump has legitimized is little white lies don't matter..but under oath, to the Congress..some may see that as a big deal. 

 

And to clear, that is the "lie" Pelosi is going to war on. Claim it silly, claim it just a small footnote to the larger issue( i think that way BTW)..but it is accurate he lied under oath.

 

He said more after “no I don’t”. 

Motive does matter, by the way. Can you or anyone else say that Barr was answering in a way that would lead a fact-finder down the wrong road in order to hide the truth?  Please stop bringing Trump into everything. Lying and hedging by witnesses have been around a lot longer than he has.  

 

 

[row_33]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

What is the definition of “is” anyway? ?

 

They had the High Priest of horseshit James Carville to tell them everything needed for salvation 

 

now they have lame late night talk show hosts to give their most intellectual speeches 

1 minute ago, snafu said:

 

He said more after “no I don’t”. 

Motive does matter, by the way. Can you or anyone else say that Barr was answering in a way that would lead a fact-finder down the wrong road in order to hide the truth?  Please stop bringing Trump into everything. Lying and hedging by witnesses have been around a lot longer than he has.  

 

 

 

Yup

 

For all those with the never ending vapours of hysteria...

 

If Trump is the first politician you have become aware of, so that makes you 12 years old, then you get a pass for being such a wuss on lying in politics

 

 

[GG]

23 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

the issue is not what is motivation was, the issue is that it appears to be abundantly clear he lied to Congress on either 04/09, or 05/01.

 

 

If you want to claim he thought that letter that was sent on the 27th was sent by Mueller, and that he did not know what members of his Mueallrs team thought, then that is a direct contradiction to 05/01 when he said be believed someone on Muellars team wrote the letter.

 

I mean it is the record..i just do not understand how it can be disputed.

 

Now, it may be a little white lie, and I know that the environment Trump has legitimized is little white lies don't matter..but under oath, to the Congress..some may see that as a big deal. 

 

And to clear, that is the "lie" Pelosi is going to war on. Claim it silly, claim it just a small footnote to the larger issue( i think that way BTW)..but it is accurate he lied under oath.

 

You keep missing the point that the threshold for telling a lie is much higher in a courtroom than it is in a regular conversation.  You can make an argument that Barr wasn't as forthcoming as he could have been in the various hearings, but that does not constitute a lie.   But in these hearings his job is not to be forthcoming, but to answer each question.   That's the first instruction your lawyers give you before any deposition.  You never, ever volunteer any elaboration on a question, unless asked to do so.  

 

That's why these hearings are so carefully orchestrated, because the point of the questioners is to get the gotcha moment.

 

Both sides knew of the existence of Mueller's letter.  But it wasn't public, so Dems used the leaked reports to entrap Barr.

 

What I don't understand is why you're more upset that Barr skillfully eluded the trap than you are about Dems and some members of the press orchestrating a perjury trap for someone who's not a prime player in the investigation on something that is not related to the investigation itself.   

 

What do the Dems gain by sidelining Barr, who's only been on the job for 3 months?    Shouldn't that scare you a hell of a lot more as a citizen?

[plenzmd1]

16 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

He said more after “no I don’t”. 

Motive does matter, by the way. Can you or anyone else say that Barr was answering in a way that would lead a fact-finder down the wrong road in order to hide the truth?  Please stop bringing Trump into everything. Lying and hedging by witnesses have been around a lot longer than he has.  

 

 

I get your point, and again I am laying out what the Democrats position is, and what they will press moving forward.

 

And ya cant leave Trump out of it, this whole affair is about Trump!

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

31 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

the issue is not what is motivation was, the issue is that it appears to be abundantly clear he lied to Congress on either 04/09, or 05/01.

 

 

If you want to claim he thought that letter that was sent on the 27th was sent by Mueller, and that he did not know what members of his Mueallrs team thought, then that is a direct contradiction to 05/01 when he said be believed someone on Muellars team wrote the letter.

 

I mean it is the record..i just do not understand how it can be disputed.

 

Now, it may be a little white lie, and I know that the environment Trump has legitimized is little white lies don't matter..but under oath, to the Congress..some may see that as a big deal. 

 

And to clear, that is the "lie" Pelosi is going to war on. Claim it silly, claim it just a small footnote to the larger issue( i think that way BTW)..but it is accurate he lied under oath.

But it's not abundantly clear, and the interpretation that he lied under oath is just that--an interpretation based on subject reasoning on a question that was asked and answered.  In fact, its a partisan political interpretation at that. 

 

As for Trump and the normalization of little white lies, I'm always struck by this sort of statement. The flip side of this argument is that prior presidents never told little white lies (or big fat whoppers) and it is abundantly clear that that is simply not true.  I understand liking someone else's lies better than another's, but this argument has zero legs. 

 

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, GG said:

 

You keep missing the point that the threshold for telling a lie is much higher in a courtroom than it is in a regular conversation.  You can make an argument that Barr wasn't as forthcoming as he could have been in the various hearings, but that does not constitute a lie.   But in these hearings his job is not to be forthcoming, but to answer each question.   That's the first instruction your lawyers give you before any deposition.  You never, ever volunteer any elaboration on a question, unless asked to do so.  

 

That's why these hearings are so carefully orchestrated, because the point of the questioners is to get the gotcha moment.

 

Both sides knew of the existence of Mueller's letter.  But it wasn't public, so Dems used the leaked reports to entrap Barr.

 

What I don't understand is why you're more upset that Barr skillfully eluded the trap than you are about Dems and some members of the press orchestrating a perjury trap for someone who's not a prime player in the investigation on something that is not related to the investigation itself.   

 

What do the Dems gain by sidelining Barr, who's only been on the job for 3 months?    Shouldn't that scare you a hell of a lot more as a citizen?

And in a room full of lawyers, 100% of the people in that room know the bolded text to be true.  It's all the folks out in America they are trying to manipulate with choreographed questions, Emmy-worthy performances revealing contempt, exasperation, and incredulity. 

[plenzmd1]

 

 

 

2

7 minutes ago, GG said:

 

You keep missing the point that the threshold for telling a lie is much higher in a courtroom than it is in a regular conversation.  You can make an argument that Barr wasn't as forthcoming as he could have been in the various hearings, but that does not constitute a lie.   But in these hearings his job is not to be forthcoming, but to answer each question.   That's the first instruction your lawyers give you before any deposition.  You never, ever volunteer any elaboration on a question, unless asked to do so.  

 

That's why these hearings are so carefully orchestrated, because the point of the questioners is to get the gotcha moment.

 

Both sides knew of the existence of Mueller's letter.  But it wasn't public, so Dems used the leaked reports to entrap Barr.

 

What I don't understand is why you're more upset that Barr skillfully eluded the trap than you are about Dems and some members of the press orchestrating a perjury trap for someone who's not a prime player in the investigation on something that is not related to the investigation itself.   

 

What do the Dems gain by sidelining Barr, who's only been on the job for 3 months?    Shouldn't that scare you a hell of a lot more as a citizen?

On that you could be correct, i am not a lawyer. And as I have stated the conversation, I am not upset, I am laying out WHY Pelosi said waht she said, and the points they persue as this moves forward, if it does.

 

As I have said 1000X, if I was the Dems I would drop the whole thing and let Trump try to run on his record, not as the "Liberal scum is out to get me, and you" which is the narrative he gets to keep pushing while this crap all plays out.

[plenzmd1]

Quote

But it's not abundantly clear, and the interpretation that he lied under oath is just that--an interpretation based on subject reasoning on a question that was asked and answered.  In fact, its a partisan political interpretation at that. 

 

As for Trump and the normalization of little white lies, I'm always struck by this sort of statement. The flip side of this argument is that prior presidents never told little white lies (or big fat whoppers) and it is abundantly clear that that is simply not true.  I understand liking someone else's lies better than another's, but this argument has zero legs. 

 

@leh-nerd skin-erd, think it may be better to respond like this..I do apologise  everyone for the issue on my replies and that freaking box!

 

As I stated above, I am not a lawyer, but to me i think it clear he lied. And @GG mentioned above, it was the information he "volunteered" in terms of the "Snitty, think his team wrote the letter" that gets him in trouble

 

and yes, i get politicians have always not told the truth, from GW till today. 

[3rdnlng]

20 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

On that you could be correct, i am not a lawyer. And as I have stated the conversation, I am not upset, I am laying out WHY Pelosi said waht she said, and the points they persue as this moves forward, if it does.

 

As I have said 1000X, if I was the Dems I would drop the whole thing and let Trump try to run on his record, not as the "Liberal scum is out to get me, and you" which is the narrative he gets to keep pushing while this crap all plays out.

Don't argue a point and then when you see you are losing, claim you are just presenting someone else's point. This isn't the first time you've done this and it won't work here. When you get cut you're supposed to bleed...…………………………………...profusely.

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, snafu said:

 

 

And @plenzmd1

The fact that Barr’s letter says what the executive summaries said in fewer words makes the Mueller letter come across as whining.  What was Barr’s motivation for lying? Was it to downplay the SC team’s reaction to Barr’s initial letter? Was it to cover up his intentional mischaracterization of the report’s conclusions?  If those are the reasons, then this is all b.s. since the executive summaries were released as part of the report a week later.  I haven’t heard any other explanations for Barr’s motivation in answering the way he did. Barr said it himself — once Mueller made his report, his job was done.  Whining or complaining about what Barr does with the report is exactly just that. I’m not trying to get into why Barr answered that Q on 4/9, but sounds like to me he was talking like a guy who (a) didn’t give a rats ass about Mueller’s letter, and (b) knew that the summaries were in the report already.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Additionally, the letter was not the only communication.  There was apparently further communication - a call between Barr and Mueller - where Mueller clarified his concern was misinterpretation of the summary by the media and public, and that he had no concerns with the content of the summary.  This was both written up in the news articles the Democrats had based their questioning on, and testified to by Narr.

 

Given that, Barr's statement that he wasn't aware of concerns on Mueller's part is entirely truthful, since he had explicit confirmation from Mueller that he had no concerns.

[B-Man]

"Democrats and the media are turning the AG into a villain for doing his duty and making the hard decisions that special counsel Robert Mueller abdicated."   "Mr. Barr's Wednesday testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee was preceded late Tuesday by the leak of a letter Mr. Mueller had sent the AG on March 27.   Mr. Mueller griped in the letter that Mr. Barr's four-page explanation to Congress of the principal conclusions of the Mueller report on March 24 'did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance' of the Mueller team's 'work and conclusions.'   Only in Washington could this exercise in posterior covering be puffed into a mini-outrage. Democrats leapt on the letter as proof that Mr. Barr was somehow covering for Donald Trump when he has covered up nothing....   Mr. Barr has since released the full Mueller report with minor redactions, as he promised, and with the 'context' intact. Keep in mind Mr. Barr was under no legal obligation to release anything at all. Mr. Mueller reports only to Mr. Barr, not to the country or Congress....    Contrast that to the abdication of Loretta Lynch, who failed as Barack Obama's last Attorney General to make a prosecutorial judgment about Hillary Clinton's misuse of classified information. Ms. Lynch cowered before the bullying of then FBI director James Comey, who absolved Mrs. Clinton of wrongdoing while publicly scolding her.... [The Democrats are] shouting and pounding the table against Bill Barr for acting like a real Attorney General." From "A Real Attorney General/Bill Barr gets smeared for refusing to duck and cover like Loretta Lynch" The Wall Street Journal.               Bunker Ranting From the Senate’s Democrats by George Parry

Original Article

[reddogblitz]

57 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

 yes, i get politicians have always not told the truth, from GW till today. 

 

Miss out on the whole LBJ /Nixon thing?

 

I never had sexual relations with that woman ...

 

It's been going on a lot longer than since W.  Probably since W(ashington).