• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mueller complained that Barr’s letter did not capture ‘context’ of Trump probe

Geebus H. Cristos. I quoted the actual letter and you say "No, it does not say that."

That's as far as I got. With that, the rest of your post isn't worth the bother.
We've all read the letter. It does not say what you claim it does, and Mueller has not come out to contradict Barr's recounting of their conversation.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
 
You're butting your head against a wall at this point.

He doesn't know, or understand. Neither does he care to at this point.
It's just bizzare to me that they can actually insist the emperor's clothes are actually classy.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
 
Which part of "The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions" do you consider to be AGREEMENT with Barr's summary?

It does not address agreement or disagreement. It says that Barr's letter doesn't give as much context as they would like. Which Barr said in his testimony.

You can imply, if you like, that "incomplete" means "accurate, but not whole", but that is implicit, rather than explicit, and they did not say it directly, and so Barr would be correct to say, based solely on this letter, that he knows whethet Mueller agreed with the accuracy of his conclusion.


Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
 
It's just bizzare to me that they can actually insist the emperor's clothes are actually classy.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

I know. You could hand these people a sheet of black construction paper and they'd still find a way to read between the lines.
 
Please stop with the name-calling. It's childish. I'm expressing my opinions and providing facts here. You can disagree all you like, but stop calling me a liar. I don't do that.

You are insisting that words clearly mean something they clearly do not, apparently because both items have negative implication, and you want the first meaning to be true. As near as I can tell, people making this argument:

A) are indeed lying
B) are in a point of mental desperation such that they are lying to themselves
C) don't speak English well enough to know the meaning of words
D) do speak English, but aren't very smart, and therefore don't know the meaning of words


I would say you are probably more likely to be B at this point, which may be causing you to shift to A, but if you are C or D, then please let us know, and I certainly apologize.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
 
We've all read the letter. It does not say what you claim it does, and Mueller has not come out to contradict Barr's recounting of their conversation.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

Yes. Maybe we should accuse dems of putting the wrong 'spin' on Barr's synopsis of Mueller's report with the threat of impeachment (if they are pursuing an impeachment of Trump).:lamo
 
Last edited:
No he hasnt because you dont know what Mueller thinks, hell EVEN YOUR OWN LINK said Barr wasnt lying

Nonsense. You simply refuse to see the truth about anything that negative towards your hero, Trump.
 
Thus far, you have remarkably failed to demonstrate any lies by Barr.

If Barr was making up that conversation, why has Mueller not corrected the record? His staff was sure to leak the letter.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

See comment #529

"On April 10, in a back and forth between Barr and Sen. Chris Van Hollen over Barr's March 24 letter, the Maryland Democrat asked Barr, "Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?" "I don't know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion," Barr replied."

That was a lie, because Barr had Mueller's letter of disagreement on March 27.
 
You lie when you think you can get away with it. Barr has no reason to think that, if he makes up a conversation with Mueller wherein Mueller says he is upset about the press coverage rather than upset about Barr's recording of the conclusions of the report in a letter, that he will get away with it.


Let us know if Mueller comes out and contradicts Barr's recounting of that conversation. Cause... Right now, you are grasping at straws.

As a friendly hint: when your evidence becomes that there is a lack of evidence, you're in conspiracy theory land.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

Sigh ... the lack of understanding on the part of Trump supporters is stunning. I think the ignorance is deliberate, y'all don't WANT to know the truth.

Let me try again, using the smallest words possible.

Barr does not give a damn if his lies are caught. His job is to DELAY, and to keep our attention on other things as much as he can. He only gives direct answers when asked for something he has already decided NOT to produce.

Watch the video. He has a couple of tells ... the first being that when a question is asked that he did not fully prepare for, he hmms and ums and asks for the question to be repeated. When he is telling an outright lie, watch his hands. When it's a real doozy of a question, he scratches the back of his head with his left hand, or folds his hands flat on the table in front of him with fingers laced.

It isn't about getting caught lying. Barr is likely counting on Trump to protect him from any consequences. What his master wants is as much delay as possible, which is why Barr is now defying a legal subpoena for the unredacted report.

Think about that for a minute ... the Attorney General of the United States is refusing to comply with the law. How did we even get there? If you voted for Trump, you helped bring on this darkness.
 
We've all read the letter. It does not say what you claim it does, and Mueller has not come out to contradict Barr's recounting of their conversation.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

This is stupid and ridiculous. If I quote directly from the letter, how does it NOT say what it says? It's a direct quote, FFS.


Sent from Paul Manafort's shiny new prison cell.
 
It does not address agreement or disagreement. It says that Barr's letter doesn't give as much context as they would like. Which Barr said in his testimony.

You can imply, if you like, that "incomplete" means "accurate, but not whole", but that is implicit, rather than explicit, and they did not say it directly, and so Barr would be correct to say, based solely on this letter, that he knows whethet Mueller agreed with the accuracy of his conclusion.


Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

That's Barr's spin on it for a congressional audience.

Someone like Mueller, who spent his life serving his country, years of which were in law enforcement, does not "go to paper" lightly. One ony does that when ine is completely frustrated and angry with the decisions of higher-ups. It is a way to get YOUR views of an issue into the permanent record. The fact that Mueller took that action speaks volumes about just how much he disagrees with Barr's assessment of the report. He would not have written a blatant accusation towards Barr, but apparently his wording is too subtle for the mind of a Trumpster.

And what do Trump supporters do? Split hairs and argue semantics.

:roll:
 
This is stupid and ridiculous. If I quote directly from the letter, how does it NOT say what it says? It's a direct quote, FFS.


Sent from Paul Manafort's shiny new prison cell.
Yes. That direct quote does not say that Mueller disagreed with Barrs conclusion. It says that he thinks Barr should have released more material. Which Barr then did.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
 
Yes. That direct quote does not say that Mueller disagreed with Barrs conclusion. It says that he thinks Barr should have released more material. Which Barr then did.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

Sigh ... you are truly a hopelessly brainwashed Trumpster. I'm sorry I wasted so much time with you. Righties and Trumpsters simply don't understand subtle language ... everything is black or white to them. If it is complex, righties just won't get it.
 
See comment #529

"On April 10, in a back and forth between Barr and Sen. Chris Van Hollen over Barr's March 24 letter, the Maryland Democrat asked Barr, "Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?" "I don't know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion," Barr replied."

That was a lie, because Barr had Mueller's letter of disagreement on March 27.

WHICH STATED NOTHING ABOUT CONCLUSIONS....holy crap man....just because you don't understand general words, doesn't mean you can contort them to fit your way of thinking.
 
Sigh ... the lack of understanding on the part of Trump supporters is stunning.

Often, certainly, as are his opponents. I, however, am not now nor have I ever been a Trump supporter. He is a narcissistic compulsive liar with the self control and temperment of a toddler. He is wholly unfit for any office of public trust, much less the one he holds. I was (as near as I can tell) the first in this forum to identify and call out the stains of fascism in his movement, I left the GOP over his nomination, and spent half of 2015 and most of 2016 fighting other Conservatives over him.

That, however, doesn't mean that reality should be bent in ways to oppose him, any more than his supporters want to twist it to him. The idea that Barr lied as you have claimed is no more supported than Trump's many falsehoods, however his supporters try to justify them.


I think the ignorance is deliberate, y'all don't WANT to know the truth.

Ironically, that is the very behavior you seem to be evincing in this thread.

Let me try again, using the smallest words possible.

Barr does not give a damn if his lies are caught. His job is to DELAY, and to keep our attention on other things as much as he can

I don't see much supporting evidence for this, and, in fact, there is some solid evidence to the contrary. As a single, major, (if not defining) example: Barr was not required to release the Mueller report. If his priority had been to delay, he could have refused to do so, forcing Congress to force his hand... Then released the summaries, then made Congress find a way to force him to release the full report, etc. If your claim was correct, then you need to account for why his actions do not support it.

Watch the video. He has a couple of tells ... the first being that when a question is asked that he did not fully prepare for, he hmms and ums and asks for the question to be repeated. When he is telling an outright lie, watch his hands. When it's a real doozy of a question, he scratches the back of his head with his left hand, or folds his hands flat on the table in front of him with fingers laced.

...you are a mind reader now? :roll: this is about as credible as the people who claimed Obama's tan suit was a way of signaling weakness and surrender to our enemies.


It isn't about getting caught lying. Barr is likely counting on Trump to protect him from any consequences.

Unlikely. Firstly, Trump is completely unreliable, and those who work for him seem to know it. Secondly, one thing we've learned from the Mueller report is that Trump subordinates are willing to ignore his direction when he tries to get them to do things that would violate the law, like lying under oath.

What his master wants is as much delay as possible, which is why Barr is now defying a legal subpoena for the unredacted report.

Think about that for a minute ... the Attorney General of the United States is refusing to comply with the law

You are incorrect in two counts:

1. The unredacted report is already available to members of Congress.

2. Releasing the unredacted report to the public would violate the law. Congress does not have the power to compel someone to violate law.

How did we even get there?

Well, it's a long story, but a good starting point is the rise of mass conspiracy theory as a political tool while George W was President.....

If you voted for Trump, you helped bring on this darkness.

Quick question: who was the last Attorney General to be found in Contempt of Congress, and which administration had IC leadership lie to Congress about spying on the American public?

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
 
Sigh ... you are truly a hopelessly brainwashed Trumpster. I'm sorry I wasted so much time with you. Righties and Trumpsters simply don't understand subtle language ... everything is black or white to them. If it is complex, righties just won't get it.
I accept your implicit admission that you are factually incorrect, that you cannot show anywhere in the letter where Mueller said what you claim he said, and that your case is completely reliant on an understood subtext that you made up.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
 
Thoughts on the National Review analysis of the Perjury claim?

Bill Barr's Testimony -- Attorney General Did Not Lie | National Review


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 24th 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 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, you know, being under-inclusive or over-inclusive, but also, you know, would trigger a lot of discussion and analysis that really should await everything coming out at once. So I was not interested in a summary of the report. . . . I felt that I should state the bottom line conclusions and I tried to use Special Counsel Mueller’s own language in doing that.

Crist did not ask a general question about Mueller’s reaction to Barr’s letter; he asked a specific question about the reaction of Mueller’s “team” to the Barr letter’s description of “the report’s findings.”
 
Sigh .. He only gives direct answers when asked for something he has already decided NOT to produce.
Watch the video. He has a couple of tells ... the first being that when a question is asked that he did not fully prepare for, he hmms and ums and asks for the question to be repeated. When he is telling an outright lie, watch his hands. When it's a real doozy of a question, he scratches the back of his head with his left hand, or folds his hands flat on the table in front of him with fingers laced.

..... which is why Barr is now defying a legal subpoena for the unredacted report.

Think about that for a minute ... the Attorney General of the United States is refusing to comply with the law.

Edited your post to reply in parts, I am new here, hope that is ok?

I agree with you in that Barr "stalls" because he knows the Senators are under time constraints. I will watch for the tells as well as look for testimony from his first AG appointment to judge if it is his nature or his statecraft.

Is Barr not offering a 100% unredacted copy for members of congress to read, against US law on grand jury testimony, all be it with limits on leaking?
 
Last edited:
WHICH STATED NOTHING ABOUT CONCLUSIONS....holy crap man....just because you don't understand general words, doesn't mean you can contort them to fit your way of thinking.

Which words are giving you trouble? Mueller took the extraordinary step of going to paper TWICE with AG Barr. Barr is his boss, so Mueller would be careful how he worded it. He would not just blatantly say "I disagree with your summary's conclusions."

"There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation,” Mr. Mueller wrote. “This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations."

Subtlety is not in the lexicon of Trump apologists, and it seems y'all need to be hit over the head with facts. Even then you make excuses for this travesty of an administration. I've come to the conclusion that I'm wasting my time trying to bring logic into this discussion, so I'm done.
 
Often, certainly, as are his opponents. I, however, am not now nor have I ever been a Trump supporter. He is a narcissistic compulsive liar with the self control and temperment of a toddler. He is wholly unfit for any office of public trust, much less the one he holds. I was (as near as I can tell) the first in this forum to identify and call out the stains of fascism in his movement, I left the GOP over his nomination, and spent half of 2015 and most of 2016 fighting other Conservatives over him.

That, however, doesn't mean that reality should be bent in ways to oppose him, any more than his supporters want to twist it to him. The idea that Barr lied as you have claimed is no more supported than Trump's many falsehoods, however his supporters try to justify them.




Ironically, that is the very behavior you seem to be evincing in this thread.



I don't see much supporting evidence for this, and, in fact, there is some solid evidence to the contrary. As a single, major, (if not defining) example: Barr was not required to release the Mueller report. If his priority had been to delay, he could have refused to do so, forcing Congress to force his hand... Then released the summaries, then made Congress find a way to force him to release the full report, etc. If your claim was correct, then you need to account for why his actions do not support it.



...you are a mind reader now? :roll: this is about as credible as the people who claimed Obama's tan suit was a way of signaling weakness and surrender to our enemies.




Unlikely. Firstly, Trump is completely unreliable, and those who work for him seem to know it. Secondly, one thing we've learned from the Mueller report is that Trump subordinates are willing to ignore his direction when he tries to get them to do things that would violate the law, like lying under oath.



You are incorrect in two counts:

1. The unredacted report is already available to members of Congress.

2. Releasing the unredacted report to the public would violate the law. Congress does not have the power to compel someone to violate law.



Well, it's a long story, but a good starting point is the rise of mass conspiracy theory as a political tool while George W was President.....



Quick question: who was the last Attorney General to be found in Contempt of Congress, and which administration had IC leadership lie to Congress about spying on the American public?

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

1. Please prove your claim that the unredacted report is already available. I've heard that NOWHERE.

2. Who's asking for the unredacted report to be released publicly? Certainly not I.

Your quick question: that would be Holder, right? The other part of your question, I have no idea.
 
Last edited:
1. Please prove your claim that the unredacted report is already available. I've heard that NOWHERE.

2. Who's asking for the unredacted report to be released publicly? Certainly not I.

Your quick question: that would be Holder, right? The other part of your question, I have no idea.

The unredacted report is still not available to Congress. Barr offered a "less-redacted" report to only 12 members of Congress - 6 Republicans and 6 Democrats. Only 12. Out of 535.
 
I accept your implicit admission that you are factually incorrect, that you cannot show anywhere in the letter where Mueller said what you claim he said, and that your case is completely reliant on an understood subtext that you made up.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

FFS he wouldn't go to paper and come right out and tell his boss "I disagree with your conclusions." Sublety, remember? Just the fact that he went to paper twice in one week about Barr's handling of his and his team's work should speak VOLUMES to anyone paying the least amount of attention.

"I accept your implicit admission that you are factually incorrect, ..." -- By all means, tell me what I think and tell me what I have said. Only conservatives do that on these forums. It's childish and annoying.
 
Thus far, you have remarkably failed to demonstrate any lies by Barr.

If Barr was making up that conversation, why has Mueller not corrected the record? His staff was sure to leak the letter.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

Verdicts been rendered Dems wanna fight over evidence. It’s silly and getting boring. Next
 
The unredacted report is still not available to Congress. Barr offered a "less-redacted" report to only 12 members of Congress - 6 Republicans and 6 Democrats. Only 12. Out of 535.

I stand corrected, thank you for helping me navigate the sea of fake news.
 
Back
Top Bottom