Page 71 of 77 FirstFirst ... 62636465666768697071727374757677 LastLast
Results 1,051 to 1,065 of 1144

Thread: Ex-FBI Director Mueller appointed DOJ Special Counsel

  1. #1051
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    5,656
    Quote Originally Posted by bfng3569 View Post
    prove everything you just said (which you have a strong habit of not doing).

    Watch the testimony, listen to Barres response, and read the letter again.

    if you still can't follow the testimony by Barr, go back to the letter and find the dicky bird and remarkable conclusion as to where it says that Mueller is unhappy with Barres findings.
    I generally do not argue a case unless I think it capable of proof. But I did quote Mueller's complaint; "The summary letter the Department sent to Congress late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this Offices work and conclusions." Now you tell me where that is complaining about 'media coverage'? It specifically says the "summary letter the Department (ie Barr) sent to Congress did not capture the context etc." Nothing about the media there... about's Barr's summary - which even Mueller calls a 'summary'!

    Quote Originally Posted by bfng3569 View Post
    as for the summary, again, its taken from the Mueller report, it 'summaries the conclusions of the report'. it is not a summary of the report itself. its not hard to follow.
    If that were true it would have said that Mueller felt he could not charge obstruction due to DoJ policy.

  2. #1052
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    5,656
    Quote Originally Posted by Red Team View Post
    Ah, so the letter is referring to the executive summaries within the report itself. I was under the initial impression that it referred to a similar four-page summary crafted by the Special Council itself.
    Indeed I am not sure Mueller's summary has been revealed but it seems clear that Barr neglected that and wrote his own 'summary'.

  3. #1053
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,507
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Indeed I am not sure Mueller's summary has been revealed but it seems clear that Barr neglected that and wrote his own 'summary'.
    Absolutely he did. Barr had to control the initial 'message' of the Report for the first 48-72 hours of the news cycle.

    To have released Mueller's own summary would've been far more damaging to Trump.

    As it is, it appears that thinking people actually read the report and saw that the Trump Campaign welcomed Russian help with open arms, and Trump repeatedly try to hinder or quash Mueller's investigation, but neither rose to the level that Mueller thought could be prosecutable under the rules handcuffing him.

    Somehow I doubt that Trump's Kool-Aid drinkers would've cared much even if those acts were clearly prosecutable. They love his "policies" and his "prosperity" enough to overlook outright treason.

    As I've said, how fucking pathetic.
    TwentyFiveFortyFive

  4. #1054
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,507
    Quote Originally Posted by bfng3569 View Post
    horse shit.

    He sat up there for 6 hours or so answering loaded questions by the democrats, who are already twisting and misrepresenting his statements, and doing nothing but looking for sound bites and perjury traps.

    and you should know exactly why he's not up there, more political grandstanding by Nadler and the dems.

    the only people twisting things are this point are the leftis media and the dems.

    and i guess you.

    its amazing that he lied about Muellers letter, even thought the letter got released, he lied about the special counsels report, then released basically all of it, and now he went and testified yesterday but wont today because he woke up scared today?

    talk about a load of bullshit.
    No, the load of bullshit is that Barr is asked simple questions like, if he thought it was OK for a president to direct people around him to lie. (which Trump did, repeatedly). His chicken-shit response?

    "I'm not in the business of determining when lies are told to the American people. I'm in the business of determining whether a crime has been committed"

    I don't recall that question being about his business...but if he'd actually answered it, honestly, Trump would've blown a few blood vessels.

    You can whine about "leftist media and the dems" all you want, but the fact remains that there are people, like me, that are neither, that are utterly disgusted by this walking pile of sewage and his spineless enablers.

    His day of reckoning will come sooner or later, just like Nixon's did. Unless he does us all a favor and keels over sooner rather than later.
    TwentyFiveFortyFive

  5. #1055
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    5,656
    Yea I read both Barr's 'summary' and his 'press conference' before the redacted report (minus Jury evidence and much else) as a PR exercise. For a few days all the Trumpkin fans could shout "No collusion, no obstruction" and kind of try to establish a conclusion in advance of the report being handed over.

    I sincerely hope that following his not showing up today and refusing to hand over the unredacted report that Barr will held in contempt and put in prison. Perhaps bfng3569 is trying to audition for next AG?

  6. #1056
    Senior Contributor Red Team's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Oct 11
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    800
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Indeed I am not sure Mueller's summary has been revealed but it seems clear that Barr neglected that and wrote his own 'summary'.
    After re-reading the letter and corresponding it to the released report, I do think that Mueller was referring to the executive summaries in the report itself. That said, my impression of the report was less "totally innocent" and more "not enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt." Sure it looks bad that several of Trump's campaign staff were found communicating and acting with Russian operatives, but there doesn't seem to be enough to say beyond reasonable doubt that they did so under his explicit direction.
    "Draft beer, not people."

  7. #1057
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    5,656
    My understanding is that in the May 27th letter which we have seen Mueller is referring to Barr's 4 page summary given to Congress on March 24 because... well that's what it actually says.

    I have several issues regarding 'Volume 1' of Mueller's report about conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Moscow. First I think the standard of proof Mueller demands is unreasonably high. He cannot allow that there is an inference that though they both want the same thing (which he admits) they are not cooperating from over 100 different meetings? I mean Shirlock Holmes or any analyst in any country would be out of business if this were always the case. Patterns of behaviour in nature are the basis of what we call 'laws of physics' even. Inference is key. I do not always need a 'smoking gun' to know the Putin regime has murdered hundreds if not thousands of it's enemies.

    Second they were sharing information - Manafort and polling data etc with 'Kostya from the GRU' (who used to be a resident of Kyiv) etc and the Trump Tower meeting about 'adoption' though nothing to do with adoption was mentioned in the emails that brought about the meeting. Well that is 'aiding and abetting' State organisations that were charged by Mueller so why on earth were not the US citizens who were aiding and abetting their crime charged also?

    On the obstruction charges I think it is pretty clear that Mueller felt he could not charge due to the DoJ policy and for that reason alone which is why he offers the impeachment option to Congress as the only 'legal option'.

  8. #1058
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Oct 06
    Posts
    788
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    I generally do not argue a case unless I think it capable of proof. But I did quote Mueller's complaint; "The summary letter the Department sent to Congress late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this Offices work and conclusions." Now you tell me where that is complaining about 'media coverage'? It specifically says the "summary letter the Department (ie Barr) sent to Congress did not capture the context etc." Nothing about the media there... about's Barr's summary - which even Mueller calls a 'summary'!



    If that were true it would have said that Mueller felt he could not charge obstruction due to DoJ policy.
    So when are you going to prove it?

    I'll ssy it slower.

    Where did Muellervsay that he disagreed with the findings Barr issued.

    Third time at least. You keep quoting it.

    Highlight were it says that Mueller disagree with the findings that Barr published. NOT THE CONTEXT.

  9. #1059
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Oct 06
    Posts
    788
    Quote Originally Posted by Red Team View Post
    Ah, so the letter is referring to the executive summaries within the report itself. I was under the initial impression that it referred to a similar four-page summary crafted by the Special Council itself.
    It may, and i may be mistaken, but i was under the impression that those summaries are part of the report and were issued with it?

  10. #1060
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Oct 06
    Posts
    788
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Yea I read both Barr's 'summary' and his 'press conference' before the redacted report (minus Jury evidence and much else) as a PR exercise. For a few days all the Trumpkin fans could shout "No collusion, no obstruction" and kind of try to establish a conclusion in advance of the report being handed over.

    I sincerely hope that following his not showing up today and refusing to hand over the unredacted report that Barr will held in contempt and put in prison. Perhaps bfng3569 is trying to audition for next AG?
    Hw cant hand over the unredacted report.

    Dems were offered a version with less redactions than the public one, they couldn't be bothered to read it.

    And the no collusion was straight out of Muellers report. Or do you now think Mueller is in on therhe conspirscy????

  11. #1061
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Oct 06
    Posts
    788
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    Absolutely he did. Barr had to control the initial 'message' of the Report for the first 48-72 hours of the news cycle.

    To have released Mueller's own summary would've been far more damaging to Trump.

    As it is, it appears that thinking people actually read the report and saw that the Trump Campaign welcomed Russian help with open arms, and Trump repeatedly try to hinder or quash Mueller's investigation, but neither rose to the level that Mueller thought could be prosecutable under the rules handcuffing him.

    Somehow I doubt that Trump's Kool-Aid drinkers would've cared much even if those acts were clearly prosecutable. They love his "policies" and his "prosperity" enough to overlook outright treason.

    As I've said, how fucking pathetic.
    Ya, thinking people that alread hate trump and made up there minds two years ago.

  12. #1062
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    4,204
    Quote Originally Posted by bfng3569 View Post
    did you?
    Yes, I did. All of it after downloading the PDF. I take it you didn't so end of discussion...

  13. #1063
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    5,656
    Quote Originally Posted by bfng3569 View Post
    So when are you going to prove it?

    I'll ssy it slower.

    Where did Muellervsay that he disagreed with the findings Barr issued.

    Third time at least. You keep quoting it.

    Highlight were it says that Mueller disagree with the findings that Barr published. NOT THE CONTEXT.

    Oh boy... well thankyou for saving me from nappy duty! But you really have a death wish or something.

    Well first I thought it was about Mueller complaining about "media coverage" of Barr's summary - is that not what you meant? Forgive my slow understanding of your clearly superior interpretation of your words;

    Quote Originally Posted by bfng3569 View Post
    the summary was not at issue, Mueller was unhappy that there wasn't more context provided with it and was unhappy with media narrative and coverage.
    Clearly I was deluded in thinking that you were under the misapprehension that Mueller was complaining of the media reporting of Barr's summary. Mueller complains that Barr's summary does not "fully capture the context, nature and substance of this Offices work and conclusions." If you can concoct that he actually thinks it represented an accurate summary of his report from that you are lying to yourself and anyone else who still retains the cognital facility.

    Let me do for you real slow ok? So "The summary letter the Department sent to Congress late in the afternoon of March 24..." Ok what Department? I reckon he's talking about the Department of Justice, who both he and Barr work for and from which Barr issued his summary to Congress on March 24. Maybe I am mistaken but at a guess he is actually referring to Barr's 'summary letter' exactly like he says! No "media coverage" there. You still following because it gets complicated here!

    Ok the second part "did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this Offices work and conclusions." Crickey what does that mean? Very complicated right? Well if I were to 'summarise' the second part I would say "it did not accurately reflect what I wrote." Now what that mean? That Mueller did not think Barr's 'summary' (that is not a summary or whatever BS) was an accurate reflection of his conclusions and this would be bad for public confidence etc he goes on to say.

    It is not necessary that I explicitly say "I think this is BS" to everything that I think is BS - I can say it many ways from irony to sardonic or at full length. I may never say "I disagree with this statement" and generally I do not need to. As we are going s l o w l y for you let me give an example;

    A few years ago Putin was in Paris and referred to "Anna of Russia" who married a French King. Well I recall writing that no "Anna of Russia" was known to history; only an Anna of Kyiv who did indeed marry some Henry of France. Moscow did not exist at the time and Muscovy is based on the Muscovite Principality it was in effect trying to steal Kyivan history. See? Look no direct contradiction of the statement? No "no I do not agree" but the lie of the words is disputed nonetheless. That is how words, language and debate work.

  14. #1064
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,972
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    I sincerely hope that following his not showing up today and refusing to hand over the unredacted report that Barr will held in contempt and put in prison. Perhaps bfng3569 is trying to audition for next AG?
    I don't care what you hope. Both by law and by policy, the DOJ is not allowed to hand over an unredacted report. What happens in the Grand Jury stays in the Grand Jury and you have zero authority to demand to see it. By policy, intel assets will not be disclosed just to give you willies that Trump is under survelliance.

    You have absolutely zero say in the matter and your conclusions are based on your own wet dreams and nothing on reality.

  15. #1065
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Oct 06
    Posts
    788
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Oh boy... well thankyou for saving me from nappy duty! But you really have a death wish or something.

    Well first I thought it was about Mueller complaining about "media coverage" of Barr's summary - is that not what you meant? Forgive my slow understanding of your clearly superior interpretation of your words;



    Clearly I was deluded in thinking that you were under the misapprehension that Mueller was complaining of the media reporting of Barr's summary. Mueller complains that Barr's summary does not "fully capture the context, nature and substance of this Offices work and conclusions." If you can concoct that he actually thinks it represented an accurate summary of his report from that you are lying to yourself and anyone else who still retains the cognital facility.

    Let me do for you real slow ok? So "The summary letter the Department sent to Congress late in the afternoon of March 24..." Ok what Department? I reckon he's talking about the Department of Justice, who both he and Barr work for and from which Barr issued his summary to Congress on March 24. Maybe I am mistaken but at a guess he is actually referring to Barr's 'summary letter' exactly like he says! No "media coverage" there. You still following because it gets complicated here!

    Ok the second part "did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this Offices work and conclusions." Crickey what does that mean? Very complicated right? Well if I were to 'summarise' the second part I would say "it did not accurately reflect what I wrote." Now what that mean? That Mueller did not think Barr's 'summary' (that is not a summary or whatever BS) was an accurate reflection of his conclusions and this would be bad for public confidence etc he goes on to say.

    It is not necessary that I explicitly say "I think this is BS" to everything that I think is BS - I can say it many ways from irony to sardonic or at full length. I may never say "I disagree with this statement" and generally I do not need to. As we are going s l o w l y for you let me give an example;

    A few years ago Putin was in Paris and referred to "Anna of Russia" who married a French King. Well I recall writing that no "Anna of Russia" was known to history; only an Anna of Kyiv who did indeed marry some Henry of France. Moscow did not exist at the time and Muscovy is based on the Muscovite Principality it was in effect trying to steal Kyivan history. See? Look no direct contradiction of the statement? No "no I do not agree" but the lie of the words is disputed nonetheless. That is how words, language and debate work.
    you're a fucking idiot.

    plain and simple.

    you didn't here what you wanted to here, so now you are burying your head in the sand.

    go back to your original point and prove that, which everyone knows you cant, so you spout off with this drivel that has no bearing or basis in reality. i'm not asking a 4th time, you couldn't support a single claim you made, and you cant now.

    you are a fraud and everyone knows it.

    you can try to obscure things as much as you want, you cant hide your bullshit posts.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Director Comey fired
    By Ironduke in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 481
    Last Post: 25 Jun 20,, 00:20
  2. Somalia: Abdiweli Mohamed Ali appointed prime minister
    By tomkent45 in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 23 Jun 11,, 16:10
  3. A Chat With ISAF's Director Of Intelligence
    By S2 in forum Operation Enduring Freedom and Af-Pak
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05 Nov 09,, 16:57
  4. Dennis Ross appointed NSC senior director
    By Ironduke in forum The Staff College
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 26 Jun 09,, 16:56
  5. Nambiar appointed UN chief of staff
    By Tronic in forum International Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01 Jan 07,, 22:26

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •