Bottom line-Barr told the truth

[OscarLevant]

That first sentence sounds like you were trying write it in code.

From what I can understand of it, it seems you have no idea what you're talking about.

Questions:

1. What is the conspiracy in which you feel the president is an un-indicted co-conspirator?

The charges levied against Cohen where "individual 1" was The president.

2. What was the lie that you feel was told by Barr?

YouTube

"No, I don't", when it was proved he did, DEFINITELY.



The evidence I asked for was your claim Hillary colluded with Russians to create the Steele Dossier.


You haven't yet provided it. I'm not asking for anyone's opinion about it, I'm asking for proof of that claim by you.

 

[Idiometer]

I read the opinion Weak logic, jumping to conclusions and mindless misdirections. She seems upset Barr's synopsis of four pages wasn't 448 like the original. Barr "cherry picked" Mueller's words, HORRORS - that's usually how a summary/synopsis works.

The issue isn't about how cherry-picked Barr's summary is, it's that he wrote a summary at all. He had the report and the executive summaries from Mueller and his team, which Mueller urged him to release to the public immediately. Barr refused to do that, instead summarizing a report that he had not thoroughly read based on underlying evidence that he admitted he had not bothered to look at.

Barr took it upon himself to publish his own blurb so that he could make it seem as if Trump were exonerated. Then it took more than three weeks to redact the thing for public consumption. During that three plus weeks, Trump's false narrative about no collusion (a word that Mueller never uses in the report) and no obstruction (a conclusion Mueller did not reach) could take full flight.

Firstly, having done that sort of work, and having read the report, I can unequivocally state that I could have done that redacting all by myself in maybe four or five days, so why did it take a team nearly four weeks? Delay tactic.

Secondly, Mueller himself immediately expressed disagreement with Barr's conclusions, both via phone and on paper, something that he would only have done out of extreme frustration with how his work was being handled and presented. And on April 9, Barr lied under oath when he claimed that he didn't know whether ot not Mueller agreed with his summary.

Delay, delay, delay ... that's the Trump administration's new mantra since Mueller turned in his report. Barr is nothing but a Trump toady.

 

[bubbabgone]

Hey, I never said that I agreed with Mueller's decision, just that I understand it. I'm trying to share that understanding with the righties here, but no good deed ever goes unpunished.

I understand and applaud the effort.

If you read that lengthy section of the report it's loaded with contradictions.
He (they) says that they're allowed to investigate a President but they also suggest they can't do anything with what they find because of the OLC.
As you've seen, that's utter bull****.
The problem remains that he (they) made the decision and then allowed his report to be loaded up with a bunch of gobbledygook that he must've known didn't apply to his situation.

There must be a reason he let the report go out that way.
Here's a possible explanation by way of analogy.
Remember Pelosi's reaction the tax cuts? She gestured that it was like tossing "crumbs" to the lowly unwashed.
Mueller's team couldn't deliver the goods so they tossed confusing crumbs to those who expected the goods.

 

[Idiometer]

The charges levied against Cohen where "individual 1" was The president.

YouTube

"No, I don't", when it was proved he did, DEFINITELY.



The evidence I asked for was your claim Hillary colluded with Russians to create the Steele Dossier.


You haven't yet provided it. I'm not asking for anyone's opinion about it, I'm asking for proof of that claim by you.

Don't hold your breath. Like most of the righties on this forum, code1211 does not feel the need to back up a claim with actual facts, probably because they get that bull**** from Breitbart and Infowars.

 

[Idiometer]

I understand and applaud the effort.

If you read that lengthy section of the report it's loaded with contradictions.
He (they) says that they're allowed to investigate a President but they also suggest they can't do anything with what they find because of the OLC.
As you've seen, that's utter bull****.
The problem remains that he (they) made the decision and then allowed his report to be loaded up with a bunch of gobbledygook that he must've known didn't apply to his situation.

There must be a reason he let the report go out that way.
Here's a possible explanation by way of analogy.
Remember Pelosi's reaction the tax cuts? She gestured that it was like tossing "crumbs" to the lowly unwashed.
Mueller's team couldn't deliver the goods so they tossed confusing crumbs to those who expected the goods.

It wasn't bull**** to Mueller. I disagree with your assessment. I'm reading the report, haven't seen any crumbs in Volume I (nearly done with that part), and don't expect Volume II to be crumbly, either. So, tell me where I'll find this gobbledygook you say is there.

 

[KLATTU]

Your petulant whining about meaningless trivia is very amusing.

But Barr just dunked in The Dems faces and there's no a dam thing they can do about it. No collusion. No obstruction. No indictment. No impeachent.

Pass the lemons around the DNC.
#LAFF RIOT

 

[bubbabgone]

It wasn't bull**** to Mueller. I disagree with your assessment. I'm reading the report, haven't seen any crumbs in Volume I (nearly done with that part), and don't expect Volume II to be crumbly, either. So, tell me where I'll find this gobbledygook you say is there.

Starting around page 159 they go into their lengthy analysis of obstruction by a President with the conclusion that, sure, they have the authority investigate a President without affecting the performance of his duties.
And they investigated but in the end they toss crumbs.

 

[Somerville]

Starting around page 159 they go into their lengthy analysis of obstruction by a President with the conclusion that, sure, they have the authority investigate a President without affecting the performance of his duties.
And they investigated but in the end they toss crumbs.

IANAL - however, the words I read in the Conclusion seem to have little likeness to 'crumbs'. IMO, though others obviously have a different opinion.

IV. CONCLUSION
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw
ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the
President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were
making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a
thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice,
we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach
that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a
crime, it also does not exonerate him.

pg 182, Vol II of the Mueller Report

 

[Bullseye]

The issue isn't about how cherry-picked Barr's summary is, it's that he wrote a summary at all. He had the report and the executive summaries from Mueller and his team, which Mueller urged him to release to the public immediately. Barr refused to do that, instead summarizing a report that he had not thoroughly read based on underlying evidence that he admitted he had not bothered to look at.

First off, when you become Attorney General you can do the job your way. Second, Barr offered Mueffer the chance to review the letter before it was released; Mueller declined. Whether Barr read the report "thoroughly" is something neither you or I know. The fact Mueller had no dispute with the content says he read it thoroughly enough.

Barr took it upon himself to publish his own blurb so that he could make it seem as if Trump were exonerated. Then it took more than three weeks to redact the thing for public consumption. During that three plus weeks, Trump's false narrative about no collusion (a word that Mueller never uses in the report) and no obstruction (a conclusion Mueller did not reach) could take full flight.

Again, you have no friggin' idea of Barr's motivations, you're just spewing partisan talking points. What Trump or any one else concluded from Barr's letters is their fault not Barr's.

Firstly, having done that sort of work, and having read the report, I can unequivocally state that I could have done that redacting all by myself in maybe four or five days, so why did it take a team nearly four weeks? Delay tactic.

Again, sounds more like partisan poop.

Secondly, Mueller himself immediately expressed disagreement with Barr's conclusions, both via phone and on paper, something that he would only have done out of extreme frustration with how his work was being handled and presented. And on April 9, Barr lied under oath when he claimed that he didn't know whether ot not Mueller agreed with his summary.

Uh, didn't Mueller say by phone that he had NO disagreement with the content of the letter?

Delay, delay, delay ... that's the Trump administration's new mantra since Mueller turned in his report. Barr is nothing but a Trump toady.

And even more partisan poop.

 

[bubbabgone]

IANAL - however, the words I read in the Conclusion seem to have little likeness to 'crumbs'. IMO, though others obviously have a different opinion.


pg 182, Vol II of the Mueller Report

That was the crumb.
They couldn't prove it so they stood on their heads to say they couldn't disprove it either.
There were crumbs because he/they could have at least said they found an obstruction crime. They didn't and the OLC was used as an excuse but later acknowledged it was not relevant.
There were crumbs because they couldn't afford 2 washouts so they instead produced that bizarre extralegal crumb for the faithful.

 

[humbolt]

That was the crumb.
They couldn't prove it so they stood on their heads to say they couldn't disprove it either.
There were crumbs because he/they could have at least said they found an obstruction crime. They didn't and the OLC was used as an excuse but later acknowledged it was not relevant.
There were crumbs because they couldn't afford 2 washouts so they instead produced that bizarre extralegal crumb for the faithful.

Right. Nobody asked the Special Counsel to disprove anything. The SC was tasked with finding evidence, if any, that proved crimes.

After all, I can't prove Trump didn't have corn flakes Tuesday morning, BUT that doesn't mean he didn't. That's where the SC wants to take us? How can anyone take that seriously?

 

[Trump]

Barr and Mueller are not the same person.

correct AG Bill Barr is Bob Mueller's Boss

 

[bubbabgone]

Right. Nobody asked the Special Counsel to disprove anything. The SC was tasked with finding evidence, if any, that proved crimes.

After all, I can't prove Trump didn't have corn flakes Tuesday morning, BUT that doesn't mean he didn't. That's where the SC wants to take us? How can anyone take that seriously?

I think now we see what Barr meant when he said some of Mueller's team weren't the best.
That Mueller let that garbage about proving innocence stay in doesn't speak well for him either.

 

[Trump]

Right. Nobody asked the Special Counsel to disprove anything. The SC was tasked with finding evidence, if any, that proved crimes.

After all, I can't prove Trump didn't have corn flakes Tuesday morning, BUT that doesn't mean he didn't. That's where the SC wants to take us? How can anyone take that seriously?

because in the end ....it's all about ousting TRUMP....we left serious territory the morning of Nov 9,2016.....

 

[humbolt]

because in the end ....it's all about ousting TRUMP....we left serious territory the morning of Nov 9,2016.....

True, but at some point the left should just say, "All right, we ain't got ****, but we still hate Trump. And we'll huff and puff, and blow your house down too."

I could respect that. Probably not, but I could.

 

[Trump]

True, but at some point the left should just say, "All right, we ain't got ****, but we still hate Trump. And we'll huff and puff, and blow your house down too."

I could respect that. Probably not, but I could.

Steny Hoyer only elected official on Dem side trying to pull reins on crazy train..media coverage pouring gasoline on the fire as other Dems running into bonfire (think burning man) yelling TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP

Devin Nunes about to blow Russian Hoax wide open....he's always been ahead of the curve just had to wait for Mueller to finish

 

[Idiometer]

First off, when you become Attorney General you can do the job your way. Second, Barr offered Mueffer the chance to review the letter before it was released; Mueller declined. Whether Barr read the report "thoroughly" is something neither you or I know. The fact Mueller had no dispute with the content says he read it thoroughly enough.
Again, you have no friggin' idea of Barr's motivations, you're just spewing partisan talking points. What Trump or any one else concluded from Barr's letters is their fault not Barr's.
Again, sounds more like partisan poop.
Uh, didn't Mueller say by phone that he had NO disagreement with the content of the letter?
And even more partisan poop.

1. Mueller expressed dispute with Barr's summary in his March 27 letter. The fact that he went to paper for the permanent record says volumes about how serious that dispute was.

2. No one with more than two brain cells could miss the obsequiousness of Barr's behavior so far on Trump's behalf. His motives are very obvious to everyone but Trump's supporters.

3. Partisan poop? Sounds like you're calling me a liar. The classes I had to take in DoD document security practices were complex and gruelling, so please don't insult me. I'm halfway through the report, and based on the redactions so far, I stand by my statement: it would have taken me one business week (5 working days) at most.

4. Uh, whose word do we have on what Mueller said in a phone call to Barr? Only Barr's word, and he has proven himself to be more than willing to lie.

5. Delay, that's right. Delay intil after the election if at all possible. Delay on getting the unredacted report to congress so no one can see what those 14 or so still pending cases are. File lawsuits to keep subpoenaed records from being released to congress. Have your pet Treasury Secretary do your delaying on a legal request to the IRS for Trump's tax returns. Stonewall by declaring that you will not accept any subpoenas from congress for anything ... not records or testimony from your staff, especially not McGahn's testimony.

What are they hiding? Aren't you even a little curious?

 

[Trump]

1. Mueller expressed dispute with Barr's summary in his March 27 letter. The fact that he went to paper for the permanent record says volumes about how serious that dispute was.

2. No one with more than two brain cells could miss the obsequiousness of Barr's behavior so far on Trump's behalf. His motives are very obvious to everyone but Trump's supporters.

3. Partisan poop? Sounds like you're calling me a liar. The classes I had to take in DoD document security practices were complex and gruelling, so please don't insult me. I'm halfway through the report, and based on the redactions so far, I stand by my statement: it would have taken me one business week (5 working days) at most.

4. Uh, whose word do we have on what Mueller said in a phone call to Barr? Only Barr's word, and he has proven himself to be more than willing to lie.

5. Delay, that's right. Delay intil after the election if at all possible. Delay on getting the unredacted report to congress so no one can see what those 14 or so still pending cases are. File lawsuits to keep subpoenaed records from being released to congress. Have your pet Treasury Secretary do your delaying on a legal request to the IRS for Trump's tax returns. Stonewall by declaring that you will not accept any subpoenas from congress for anything ... not records or testimony from your staff, especially not McGahn's testimony.

What are they hiding? Aren't you even a little curious?

Barr/Mueller rendered the verdict...No hiding. Rehashing evidence is useless. Mueller had a choice and passed on obstruction.

 

[Bullseye]

1. Mueller expressed dispute with Barr's summary in his March 27 letter. The fact that he went to paper for the permanent record says volumes about how serious that dispute was.

And yet he declined to review the document before it was released. What he expressed concern about was that Barr didn't cover the context, etc his teams work. He told Barr he had no problem with the content.

2. No one with more than two brain cells could miss the obsequiousness of Barr's behavior so far on Trump's behalf. His motives are very obvious to everyone but Trump's supporters.

WHAT "obsequious behavior? Specifics please.

3. Partisan poop? Sounds like you're calling me a liar. The classes I had to take in DoD document security practices were complex and gruelling, so please don't insult me. I'm halfway through the report, and based on the redactions so far, I stand by my statement: it would have taken me one business week (5 working days) at most.

Good for you.

4. Uh, whose word do we have on what Mueller said in a phone call to Barr? Only Barr's word, and he has proven himself to be more than willing to lie

WTF are you talking about? What lies? Did Mueller say Barr was lying? Nope.

5. Delay, that's right. Delay intil after the election if at all possible. Delay on getting the unredacted report to congress so no one can see what those 14 or so still pending cases are. File lawsuits to keep subpoenaed records from being released to congress. Have your pet Treasury Secretary do your delaying on a legal request to the IRS for Trump's tax returns. Stonewall by declaring that you will not accept any subpoenas from congress for anything ... not records or testimony from your staff, especially not McGahn's testimony.

Yeah, the law be damned just give the Dems what they want, and when details of pending investigations leak out or the secrecy of the grand jury process is violated who gets the blame?

What are they hiding? Aren't you even a little curious?

Why would I be curious about your absurd fantasies?

 

[Idiometer]

Barr/Mueller rendered the verdict...No hiding. Rehashing evidence is useless. Mueller had a choice and passed on obstruction.

Which I already explained to you. Let me know if you still just don't get it, and I'll try again.

 

[bubbabgone]

1. Mueller expressed dispute with Barr's summary in his March 27 letter. The fact that he went to paper for the permanent record says volumes about how serious that dispute was.

2. No one with more than two brain cells could miss the obsequiousness of Barr's behavior so far on Trump's behalf. His motives are very obvious to everyone but Trump's supporters.

3. Partisan poop? Sounds like you're calling me a liar. The classes I had to take in DoD document security practices were complex and gruelling, so please don't insult me. I'm halfway through the report, and based on the redactions so far, I stand by my statement: it would have taken me one business week (5 working days) at most.

4. Uh, whose word do we have on what Mueller said in a phone call to Barr? Only Barr's word, and he has proven himself to be more than willing to lie.

5. Delay, that's right. Delay intil after the election if at all possible. Delay on getting the unredacted report to congress so no one can see what those 14 or so still pending cases are. File lawsuits to keep subpoenaed records from being released to congress. Have your pet Treasury Secretary do your delaying on a legal request to the IRS for Trump's tax returns. Stonewall by declaring that you will not accept any subpoenas from congress for anything ... not records or testimony from your staff, especially not McGahn's testimony.

What are they hiding? Aren't you even a little curious?

And there it is, just as predicted.
The first use I've seen here of the "Dismiss Barr" subset of the "Dismiss The Source" superset that's used to avoid bad news.
You guys are waaaaay too predictable.
A further note, Barr called Mueller after he got the letter in question.

 

[humbolt]

And there it is, just as predicted.
The first use I've seen here of the "Dismiss Barr" subset of the "Dismiss The Source" superset that's used to avoid bad news.
You guys are waaaaay too predictable.
A further note, Barr called Mueller after he got the letter in question.

Well, heh, Barr says he called Mueller...But we know Barr was actually on the phone with Satan.

 

[bubbabgone]

Well, heh, Barr says he called Mueller...But we know Barr was actually on the phone with Satan.

How many letters in "Satan"?
How many letters in "Trump"?
A coincidence?
I think not.
I think Laurel & Hardy need to subpoena Satan to get the bastard under oath so they can discover the truth.

Speaking of lying liars, it raises a question I always wondered about.
The witnesses swear an oath to tell the truth, why don't the Congress critters asking the questions?
You can lie with questions as well as answers.
Make a new rule about lying while asking a question.
They can call it the Hirono rule.

 

[Lesh]

And there it is, just as predicted.
The first use I've seen here of the "Dismiss Barr" subset of the "Dismiss The Source" superset that's used to avoid bad news.
You guys are waaaaay too predictable.
A further note, Barr called Mueller after he got the letter in question.

Mueller was in contact FIVE times in March to try to "redirect" Barr's mischaracterizations.

That's extraordinary

 

[bubbabgone]

Mueller was in contact FIVE times in March to try to "redirect" Barr's mischaracterizations.

That's extraordinary

Show me.
All we know is ...

"Barr said he spoke with Mueller by phone in late March, and that Mueller made “very clear” in that call he was not suggesting the Justice Department misled the public. Instead, Barr said, Mueller believed public reporting of the memo was inaccurate and wanted more information to be released related to Mueller’s explanation for why he didn’t reach a conclusion on obstruction."
"Barr also told lawmakers Wednesday that he was initially surprised when he learned Mueller would not reach a conclusion on whether to recommend obstruction charges against Trump. He said Mueller stated three times during a March meeting “that he emphatically was not saying that but for the (Office of Legal Counsel) opinion he would have found obstruction."

In Senate Testimony, Barr Defends Characterization of Mueller Report