Bottom line-Barr told the truth

[Idiometer]

Because that's what you heard.

Because that's how Barr behaves.

 

[Idiometer]

He did know what, exactly? You do know they were talking about the decision not to charge obstruction, right?

You do know that Mueller was under the impression that he could not indict a sitting president, right? You do understand that those were the special council rules as Mueller understood them, right? You have read Volume II of the report, right? You are aware that Mueller clearly detailed obstruction actions by Trump, but directed that evidence to congress for further action, right?

:thinking

 

[ataraxia]

Mueller never said BArr lied.

Mueller told Barr, in writing, that he had misrepresented the “substance and context” of his report to Congress and the American people. That’s legalese for “you lied”.

 

[Idiometer]

Quote that alleged lie. Mueller stated the obvious in that memo (letter?) to Barr - that a 4 page summary of the 400 page report diid not "fully capture" its content and later stated that the misinterpretation of that memo by the media was not due to it being inaccurate.

See #121.

 

[KLATTU]

Mueller told Barr, in writing, that he had misrepresented the “substance and context” of his report to Congress. That’s legalese for “you lied”.

Not at all. We all know Mueller's a Trump hater and likely wanted Barr's summary to sound worse for Trump. But he never said BArr lied.

 

[KLATTU]

You do know that Mueller was under the impression that he could not indict a sitting president, right? You do understand that those were the special council rules as Mueller understood them, right? You have read Volume II of the report, right? You are aware that Mueller clearly detailed obstruction actions by Trump, but directed that evidence to congress for further action, right?

:thinking

direct quote---where's the lie??
. After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other – as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime.



are you saying Muller DID reach a legal conclusion?
BTW the whole left wing meme that Mueller "didn't think he could indict a president" is complete BS. If Mueller thought he committed a crime, he could have easily said so.

 

[Lesh]

Don’t pretend that saying one sentence that is kinda true is the same thing as being completely truthful

 

[ataraxia]

Not at all. We all know Mueller's a Trump hater and likely wanted Barr's summary to sound worse for Trump. But he never said BArr lied.

Who’s “we”? Fox News? Not all bad news for Trump is fake news, and not all people who don't prostrate themselves before Lord Trump necessarily hate him.

It was Mueller’s report. If he wanted it to sound worse, he could have made it sound worse himself.

But he told Barr he had misrepresented his report, ie, lied.

Can we agree at least that Barr lied when asked whether he had heard any objections from the special counsel about his summary and he said “no”? We know for a fact that as of the date of that questioning he had received TWO WRITTEN LETTERS from Mueller asking him why he was misrepresenting his report.

Come on, that’s at least something as plain as day, isn’t it? Or you gonna find a clever way to gaslight that too?

 

[ataraxia]

direct quote---where's the lie??
. After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other – as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime.



are you saying Muller DID reach a legal conclusion?
BTW the whole left wing meme that Mueller "didn't think he could indict a president" is complete BS. If Mueller thought he committed a crime, he could have easily said so.

Mueller said he “could not exonerate”- that’s depending on whether a sitting president could be charged with crimes. Because the law is not clear, he couldn’t do it and has left it up to congress and the courts. Anyone else charged with those points would unquestionably be indicted.

 

[Idiometer]

irrelevant partisan blather .
Where's the lie?

Which one? The one where he claims that a sitting president need only claim that he's being falsely accused in order to shut down an investigation? Or the one where he lied under oath in early April, when asked if Mueller agreed with his "no obstruction" assessment, to which he replied "I don't know." ? Because as we all now know, Mueller even went to PAPER to dispute Barr's summary as early as March 27, so Barr making that statement in April was, in fact, a blatant lie, under oath. He should resign or be impeached for lying to congress, and IMHO Barr should be disbarred.

 

[Casper]

What page and paragraph is that?
I missed it.

From his testimony, Barr said:
"if an investigation is based on false allegations, the president dies not have to sit there constitutionally and ALLOW it to run its course"
Ring any bells for you, no, I doubt it.
Now back to your dance. Going to be fun watching you guys and trump scream when Mueller testifies, and he Will do it.

 

[vesper]

Barr stated that the Special Counsel's report (1) did not find conspiracy or coordination between any members of the Trump campaign and the Russians, (2) laid out evidence on both sides of the obstruction of justice issue, and (3) did not reach a determination on obstruction charges either way, adding that this lack of a decision did not constitute an exoneration (a key distinction that Barr included in his memo). All of that was correct and accurate. We know this because we have the report itself, thanks to Barr.

All the rest is just inconsequential left wing noise.

An in the end- what Barr said doesn't matter. We have the full report.

I heard someone describe what happened yesterday with Democrats is like someone complaining about a trailer of a movie released two weeks ago when by now the movie is playing in the theaters for all to watch. It was reported yesterday that only three members of Congress have taken advantage of reading the version with even less redactions Barr had provided the leadership and they were all Republicans. Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham and Rep. Collins. Democrat leadership has not even bothered to read it. So when you see, Pelosi Schiff and Nadler clanging their cymbals it's important to understand not one of them have bothered to read what has already been provided to them.

 

[ataraxia]

I heard someone describe what happened yesterday with Democrats is like someone complaining about a trailer of a movie released two weeks ago when by now the movie is playing in the theaters for all to watch. It was reported yesterday that only three members of Congress have taken advantage of reading the version with even less redactions Barr had provided the leadership and they were all Republicans. Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham and Rep. Collins. Democrat leadership has not even bothered to read it. So when you see, Pelosi Schiff and Nadler clanging their cymbals it's important to understand not one of them have bothered to read what has already been provided to them.

Everyone has read the report now. It didn’t say “no obstruction” like Barr told us it would. To use your analogy, that’s like telling people in the trailer that the hero doesn't die at the end, and when you watch the movie you realize he does. That’s lying.

 

[Helix]

Oh FFS.

If Barr misrepresented MUeller's conclusions and Mueller actually intended to indict Trump but refused to do so because of the OLC rule then Mueller could have stated that decision in the report. He didn't. Since he didn't state that decision it is HIGHLY unlikely that it was his intent to indict OR that he felt he had enough evidence of obstruction to SUCCESSFULLY prosecute such an indictment.

I'm not into fan fiction.

 

[Lutherf]

I heard someone describe what happened yesterday with Democrats is like someone complaining about a trailer of a movie released two weeks ago when by now the movie is playing in the theaters for all to watch. It was reported yesterday that only three members of Congress have taken advantage of reading the version with even less redactions Barr had provided the leadership and they were all Republicans. Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham and Rep. Collins. Democrat leadership has not even bothered to read it. So when you see, Pelosi Schiff and Nadler clanging their cymbals it's important to understand not one of them have bothered to read what has already been provided to them.

Their objective was to put Trump in jail or, failing that, put enough of his associates in jail that Trump would be totally hamstrung. They didn’t get what they wanted from Mueller. Because they didn’t get what they wanted they are now going to take out their frustration on Barr. Pelosi’s statement today is a damned good indication that they will be pursuing perjury charges against him.

Frankly, I find it a little disconcerting that the Democrats in power have decided to campaign in these hearings rather that legislate. That doesn’t bode well for what they would do if they had both hoes and the WH. What I find MORE concerning, however, is that so many Democrat citizens are cheering them on with this behavior. It’s really got that “Germany, 1938” kind of feel to it.

 

[Slavister]

Barr stated that the Special Counsel's report (1) did not find conspiracy or coordination between any members of the Trump campaign and the Russians, (2) laid out evidence on both sides of the obstruction of justice issue, and (3) did not reach a determination on obstruction charges either way, adding that this lack of a decision did not constitute an exoneration (a key distinction that Barr included in his memo). All of that was correct and accurate. We know this because we have the report itself, thanks to Barr.

All the rest is just inconsequential left wing noise.

An in the end- what Barr said doesn't matter. We have the full report.

I will agree that this was all correct and accurate.

Just as it's correct and accurate that Mueller implied that Trump is guilty of obstruction and that either Congress should impeach or it's up to prosecutors to indict Trump after he leaves office.

 

[trixare4kids]

Attorney General William Barr doesn’t mind lying for Trump but he’s really awful at it - Chicago Tribune

Yeah, no bias here in this "journalist's" opinion piece. Let's review the opening paragraphs in her following diatribe. :lol:

There was never any doubt that Attorney General William Barr would be more loyal to Donald Trump than to the American people. Trump would not have chosen him for the job if he were not.

But Trump required something else of the man heading “his” Justice Department. He would have to forfeit all semblances of honesty, dignity and self-respect. And most importantly, he would have to be willing to lie.

 

[KLATTU]

Mueller said he “could not exonerate”- thted.

Which is what Barr said.
THANKS for proving my point

 

[KLATTU]

From his testimony, Barr said:
"if an investigation is based on false allegations, the president dies not have to sit there constitutionally and ALLOW it to run its course"
Rit.

And that's a lie?

 

[trixare4kids]

Read the article.

It's still an opinion piece.

 

[KLATTU]

I will agree that this was all correct and accurate.
e.

Thank You!

 

[Casper]

And that's a lie?

Yes, because to say he can obstruct an investigation is untrue due the fact that it is not Legal, as head of the DOJ he knows that. Oh and You know it also....

 

[KLATTU]

Which one? The one where he claims that a sitting president need only claim that he's being falsely accused in order to shut down an investigation? Or the one where he lied under oath in early April, when asked if Mueller agreed with his "no obstruction" assessment, to which he replied "I don't know." ? Because as we all now know, Mueller even went to PAPER to dispute Barr's summary as early as March 27, so Barr making that statement in April was, in fact, a blatant lie, under oath. He should resign or be impeached for lying to congress, and IMHO Barr should be disbarred.

Well since Barr never said Mueller made a 'no obstruction 'assessment, we can stop right there.Come back when you can be honest.

 

[trixare4kids]

Dahleen Glanton? Really? That's what you got?

Yeah, everyone knows she's an unbiased moderate Independent; a beacon of truth.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle! :lamo

 

[bubbabgone]

Voila, you're not paying attention.

You mean like these?

How would anyone know about your threads?