Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ex-FBI Director Mueller appointed DOJ Special Counsel

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Red Team View Post
    From the letter:



    Note that Mueller does not use the term "misrepresentation"---likely to avoid sounding accusatory or combative. Irrespective of intent or partisan semantics, it is clear that Mueller and his team fundamentally believe that Barr's summary does not represent the core findings of the investigation to the fullest extent, and wish to have their own in-house summaries be released for public scrutiny.

    If it is really the case that Mueller's summaries do not present concerns for national security and meet the legal requirements for public release, there should be no reason to debate their release. After all, the final conclusions set forth by Mueller's team shouldn't stray terribly far from Barr's conclusions.
    both of the bolded are just wrong.

    If Mueller didn't agree with the core findings, i find it pretty hard to believe he issue such a vague statement on such a critical issue.

    as well as Barrs testimony yesterday were i believe he stated that when he talked to Mueller, Mueller said that Barr did not misrepresent his findings.

    if thats the case, then Barre just flat out actually did lie to congress, and he did it knowing full well that Mueller is coming to testify as well shortly.

    Comment


    • 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.
      That is remarkable conclusion as Mueller never mentions once in his March 27 letter to Barr his complaints "with media narrative and coverage." Not once! Not a dicky bird! Barr once again lied about this.

      Originally posted by bfng3569 View Post
      the summary, which Barr has stated over and over again, was the 'summary' of conclusions' from Muellers report...it was not a summary of the report at all, he never said it was, and he never intended it to be.
      This is getting surreal! When is a summary not a summary? When it's a summary of conclusions? I can do formal logic problems but this distinction seems entirely artificial to me. If I write a 400/500 report on the murders of the Putin regime and send it some reviewer I do not expect a summary which is not a summary telling people how I think Putin whiter than white. Mueller says the only reason he did NOT charge Trumpkin with obstruction was because of the DoJ policy that a sitting President cannot be indicted; not a law, not an article of the Constitution; a DoJ policy. If it had been you, you'd be in the slammer right now.

      Originally posted by bfng3569 View Post
      The president can most certainly fire the special counsel for conflict of interest which is also not at all obstruction, it only becomes a consideration and probable obstruction if he fires him and does not replace him.
      That is not what Barr said. He said that if the President did not like an inquiry into his actions he could fire that person. If this were the basis of law the prisons would be empty.

      Originally posted by bfng3569 View Post
      i'd suggest you consider taking the worms out of your head.
      There are none in my head, many in your Government.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by bfng3569 View Post
        is there a point, particularly, the last quote?
        Yes there is. Barr is sitting there like a big stupid lump mumbling barely coherently excuses and not answering simple questions. He's dancing all over the place like a drunken elephant.
        Typical of someone trying to defend Trump, Barr has to twist reality into something that it's not. Probably took lessons from Guilani, Conway and Sanders.

        And now he's too chicken-shit to even show up because he knows that if he tells the truth (not likely) that he's fucked. And if he lies (much more likely), he's still fucked.

        Solution: Run behind Daddy Donald and hope that he'll deign to protect him (don't count on it)
        Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

        Comment


        • All much ado about nothing. Barr released Mueller's Report. Everyone can see what Mueller was saying. Whether Barr was accurate or not (he was and that's all that it matters - this nuance thing is Mueller's Cover-My-Ass thing - I know Trump is guilty but I can't prove it) in his summary is moot.
          Chimo

          Comment


          • Two words:

            Navel Gazing.

            Comment


            • I think Mueller's actual point regarding obstruction was that he could not charge it.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by snapper View Post
                That is remarkable conclusion as Mueller never mentions once in his March 27 letter to Barr his complaints "with media narrative and coverage." Not once! Not a dicky bird! Barr once again lied about this.



                This is getting surreal! When is a summary not a summary? When it's a summary of conclusions? I can do formal logic problems but this distinction seems entirely artificial to me. If I write a 400/500 report on the murders of the Putin regime and send it some reviewer I do not expect a summary which is not a summary telling people how I think Putin whiter than white. Mueller says the only reason he did NOT charge Trumpkin with obstruction was because of the DoJ policy that a sitting President cannot be indicted; not a law, not an article of the Constitution; a DoJ policy. If it had been you, you'd be in the slammer right now.



                That is not what Barr said. He said that if the President did not like an inquiry into his actions he could fire that person. If this were the basis of law the prisons would be empty.



                There are none in my head, many in your Government.
                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.

                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.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                  All much ado about nothing. Barr released Mueller's Report. Everyone can see what Mueller was saying. Whether Barr was accurate or not (he was and that's all that it matters - this nuance thing is Mueller's Cover-My-Ass thing - I know Trump is guilty but I can't prove it) in his summary is moot.
                  If that is the case, then Barr should have no problem acquiescing to release Mueller's summaries as per the Special Counsel's letter. It would certainly squash any lingering suspicions or disputes from the House committees.
                  "Draft beer, not people."

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                    Yes there is. Barr is sitting there like a big stupid lump mumbling barely coherently excuses and not answering simple questions. He's dancing all over the place like a drunken elephant.
                    Typical of someone trying to defend Trump, Barr has to twist reality into something that it's not. Probably took lessons from Guilani, Conway and Sanders.

                    And now he's too chicken-shit to even show up because he knows that if he tells the truth (not likely) that he's fucked. And if he lies (much more likely), he's still fucked.

                    Solution: Run behind Daddy Donald and hope that he'll deign to protect him (don't count on it)
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Red Team View Post
                      If that is the case, then Barr should have no problem acquiescing to release Mueller's summaries as per the Special Counsel's letter. It would certainly squash any lingering suspicions or disputes from the House committees.
                      did he not?

                      Muellers summaries are in the report if i i am not mistaken.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                        Yes there is. Barr is sitting there like a big stupid lump mumbling barely coherently excuses and not answering simple questions. He's dancing all over the place like a drunken elephant.
                        Typical of someone trying to defend Trump, Barr has to twist reality into something that it's not. Probably took lessons from Guilani, Conway and Sanders.

                        And now he's too chicken-shit to even show up because he knows that if he tells the truth (not likely) that he's fucked. And if he lies (much more likely), he's still fucked.

                        Solution: Run behind Daddy Donald and hope that he'll deign to protect him (don't count on it)
                        I did like it when asked a question that had the word "suggest" in it. Stumped, or stalling for time, he asks for the question to be repeated. After that he says he doesn't understand what the word suggests means. I know what it means, you know what it means, he deep down knows what it means but the lawyer in him is trying to figure out how to finesse the word to something else. I do enjoy watching Harris, a former state DA, ask pointed questions unlike other Senators who spend time pontificating. Harris makes you squirm. Meanwhile Republicans Senators seem to be all consumed by Hillary just as much as Trump is.

                        My opinion regarding this episode is that Barr should have kept his mouth shut and simply release the report. No where in the report, I read the whole damn thing, is the A.G asked or tasked with making an judgment. Mueller knew a sitting President couldn't be indicted on criminal charges of obstruction without slam dunk proof. However, he knew Trump could not be exonerated at all. Are there possible charges where one could make the case that the President exerted influence that is above and beyond his constitutional powers? Yes, there were a couple for sure. Others were a little more muddied. Reminded me of " if a tree falls in a forest, and no one is around, does it make a sound?" If a President tells a subordinate to fire someone, in order to end an investigation, and the subordinate does not follow through does that constitute obstruction? All in all did Trump try to obstruct through different means? Yes, he most certainly tried to. Whether criminal or not was the tough question for Mueller given he couldn't get everything he wanted. This is where Congress comes in as I got no sense that Mueller is implying this case is closed.

                        Comment


                        • 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.
                          I take it you didn't read the report start to finish...

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
                            I did like it when asked a question that had the word "suggest" in it. Stumped, or stalling for time, he asks for the question to be repeated. After that he says he doesn't understand what the word suggests means. I know what it means, you know what it means, he deep down knows what it means but the lawyer in him is trying to figure out how to finesse the word to something else. I do enjoy watching Harris, a former state DA, ask pointed questions unlike other Senators who spend time pontificating. Harris makes you squirm. Meanwhile Republicans Senators seem to be all consumed by Hillary just as much as Trump is.

                            My opinion regarding this episode is that Barr should have kept his mouth shut and simply release the report. No where in the report, I read the whole damn thing, is the A.G asked or tasked with making an judgment. Mueller knew a sitting President couldn't be indicted on criminal charges of obstruction without slam dunk proof. However, he knew Trump could not be exonerated at all. Are there possible charges where one could make the case that the President exerted influence that is above and beyond his constitutional powers? Yes, there were a couple for sure. Others were a little more muddied. Reminded me of " if a tree falls in a forest, and no one is around, does it make a sound?" If a President tells a subordinate to fire someone, in order to end an investigation, and the subordinate does not follow through does that constitute obstruction? All in all did Trump try to obstruct through different means? Yes, he most certainly tried to. Whether criminal or not was the tough question for Mueller given he couldn't get everything he wanted. This is where Congress comes in as I got no sense that Mueller is implying this case is closed.
                            ya, it means if snowhite came to him in a dream and 'suggested' it, and didn't mention it, he'd be screwed.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
                              I take it you didn't read the report start to finish...
                              did you?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by bfng3569 View Post
                                did he not?

                                Muellers summaries are in the report if i i am not mistaken.
                                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.
                                "Draft beer, not people."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X