Barr testimony - Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

Jim in CT · 05-01-2019, 11:53 AM

Barr said this to the Senate committee today, under penalty of perjury...

“He (Mueller) was very clear with me that he was not suggesting we had mispresented his report,” Barr said.

If Barr was lying, Mueller should say so, and we can arrest and impeach Barr. Short of that, there's nothing to see here, other than snowflakes with TDS unable to process the truth, unless it serves their political agenda.

The people shrieking that there is a cover-up here, have a great opportunity to prove their case and prove that Barr committed perjury. Short of that, they should move on, or else run the risk of sounding like birthers, and those who claim 9/11 was an inside job.

Just because Barr didn't arrest Trump, that alone isn't evidence of a cover-up. Mueller didn't charge him either.

Mueller didn't suggest indictments, nor did his report identify a smoking gun. So why is it so shocking, when Barr summarized the report the way he did?

spence · 05-01-2019, 03:03 PM

We need to hear from Mueller.

Barr's account of the discussion doesn't jibe with what Mueller wrote. It looks like Barr may have lied to congress about it as well. Barr also has sought to color the public perception of the Report at just about every turn. He's acting as the President's defense attorney not a blind defender of the Law.

Barr is good, he's a master of distortion and obfuscation. At times he also sounds like my 15 year old trying to get out of trouble. Huh? What? Why do you care? We were sold a bill of goods that he was the real deal and perhaps he was 20 years ago. Turns out he's another Rudy Giuliani.

I love this gem at the end of the session this afternoon. Mueller didn't make a call on obstruction, Barr said there wasn't a case and yet today admitted he or Rosenstein never reviewed the underlying evidence.

Nope no cover up here. Move along.

scottw · 05-01-2019, 03:07 PM

oh please stop....

Jim in CT · 05-01-2019, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence

We need to hear from Mueller.

Barr's account of the discussion doesn't jibe with what Mueller wrote. It looks like Barr may have lied to congress about it as well. Barr also has sought to color the public perception of the Report at just about every turn. He's acting as the President's defense attorney not a blind defender of the Law.

Barr is good, he's a master of distortion and obfuscation. At times he also sounds like my 15 year old trying to get out of trouble. Huh? What? Why do you care? We were sold a bill of goods that he was the real deal and perhaps he was 20 years ago. Turns out he's another Rudy Giuliani.

I love this gem at the end of the session this afternoon. Mueller didn't make a call on obstruction, Barr said there wasn't a case and yet today admitted he or Rosenstein never reviewed the underlying evidence.

Nope no cover up here. Move along.

Mueller doesn’t seem to be saying that Barr contradicted his report. Wouldn’t he know?

And boy in the other thread, it seemed like you all had already concluded Barr contradicted the Mueller report.

Before we hear from Mueller, what’s the evidence Barr lies? we all know you want Barr to be
lying. Does that mean he’s lying?

Your post has a lot of vague accusations, zero specific evidence. All fizz and no gin.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PaulS · 05-01-2019, 03:22 PM

Barr was previously asked if Mueller and his team we're upset with him for his letter. He claimed they were not yet he had a letter contradicting that statement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch · 05-01-2019, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence

I love this gem at the end of the session this afternoon. Mueller didn't make a call on obstruction, Barr said there wasn't a case and yet today admitted he or Rosenstein never reviewed the underlying evidence.

Nope no cover up here. Move along.

Barr said he and Rosenstein accepted Mueller's report as factual. Asking if he reviewed the underlying evidence is another way of asking if he investigated the investigation. He accepted Mueller's report as factual and complete. There would be no point in starting the investigation all over again in order to verify the facts. The investigation was thorough and complete and accepted as such.

Jim in CT · 05-01-2019, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS

Barr was previously asked if Mueller and his team we're upset with him for his letter. He claimed they were not yet he had a letter contradicting that statement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought the letter said that Mueller didn't agree with the context of Barr's letter, not his conclusions. Brett Baier reported yesterday that Mueller specifically said that Barr's conclusions were not inaccurate.

Can we see the letter you are referring to?

Jim in CT · 05-01-2019, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by detbuch

Barr said he and Rosenstein accepted Mueller's report as factual. .

If that's true, and that's also what I heard, then we are done, move on.

Foxnews is saying that Mueller claimed Barr's conclusions were not inaccurate. All the other networks are saying that mueller claimed Barr was lying. This is what Spence, Got Stripers, and paul are saying. I don't have any idea what's true.

Either Fox, or everyone else, is going to look really, really stupid.

Everyone else still has egg dripping on their faces from claiming for 2 years that Mueller was going to indict Trump and his family.

PaulS · 05-01-2019, 04:06 PM

Mueller's letter said Barr did not capture the "context, nature or substance" of the report. Mueller's letter in itself was unusual because in the justice department individuals don't normally write those type of letters.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch · 05-01-2019, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS

Mueller's letter said Barr did not capture the "context, nature or substance" of the report. Mueller's letter in itself was unusual because in the justice department individuals don't normally write those type of letters.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't know what it means to "capture" context, nature, or substance. What ever it might mean, did he "capture" if the facts, the factual evidence, was sufficient to conclude either conspiracy or obstruction?

PaulS · 05-01-2019, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Can we see the letter you are referring to?

If you do a search there is a second letter that was just released from mueller.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PaulS · 05-01-2019, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by detbuch

Don't know what it means to "capture" context, nature, or substance. What ever it might mean, did he "capture" if the facts, the factual evidence, was sufficient to conclude either conspiracy or obstruction?

If you thought I was stupid why would you ask me a question? Is this more of not being able to control your anger? Send me another one of those apologies and maybe I'll respond to you
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT · 05-01-2019, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS

Mueller's letter said Barr did not capture the "context, nature or substance" of the report. Mueller's letter in itself was unusual because in the justice department individuals don't normally write those type of letters.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Barr’s letter was released, as was the Mueller report. If there are glaring inconsistencies, we would
know about it. What is in the Barr letter, which is not supported by the Mueller report? thats the obvious first question. Did the Mueller
report recommend that the DOJ induct Trump? That would
be a serious inconsistency...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

scottw · 05-01-2019, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Did the Mueller
report recommend that the DOJ induct Trump?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yes, into the Hall of Fame for driving leftists insane

PaulS · 05-01-2019, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Barr’s letter was released, as was the Mueller report. If there are glaring inconsistencies, we would
know about it. What is in the Barr letter, which is not supported by the Mueller report? thats the obvious first question. Did the Mueller
report recommend that the DOJ induct Trump? That would
be a serious inconsistency...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The issue is that after Barr released Barr's letter, Mueller sent him a letter saying you didn't capture the substance of my report. Then Barr testified to Congress that he did not think Mueller was upset with Barr's letter. So he had the letter from Mueller yet he claimed Mueller was not upset (my word) with his letter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

scottw · 05-01-2019, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS

If you thought I was stupid why would you ask me a question?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

because it's fun to see what kind of nonsense you will come up with

you sound really angry...

scottw · 05-01-2019, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS

The issue is that after Barr released Barr's letter, Mueller sent him a letter saying you didn't capture the substance of my report. Then Barr testified to Congress that he did not think Mueller was upset with Barr's letter. So he had the letter from Mueller yet he claimed Mueller was not upset (my word) with his letter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

curious...

PaulS · 05-01-2019, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottw

because it's fun to see what kind of nonsense you will come up with

you sound really angry...

Not at all I think he's funny. Now you sound snarky
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch · 05-01-2019, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS

If you thought I was stupid why would you ask me a question? Is this more of not being able to control your anger? Send me another one of those apologies and maybe I'll respond to you
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You were too stupid to realize that it was a rhetorical question.

PaulS · 05-01-2019, 04:50 PM

I'm smart enough to know that you're an angry man.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch · 05-01-2019, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS

I'm smart enough to know that you're an angry man.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah, this "angry" tic you keep repeating shows how really smart you are.

PaulS · 05-01-2019, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yeah, this "angry" tic you keep repeating shows how really smart you are.

And yet you constantly insult people here. If that's not an angry man tell me what it is? Show me other posts where I've repeatedly claimed I'm smart? If you can I'll apologize. If you can't it proves you're an angry scummy liar.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT · 05-01-2019, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS

The issue is that after Barr released Barr's letter, Mueller sent him a letter saying you didn't capture the substance of my report. Then Barr testified to Congress that he did not think Mueller was upset with Barr's letter. So he had the letter from Mueller yet he claimed Mueller was not upset (my word) with his letter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ok. but it’s also reported, that before barr testified, that Mueller called Barr and told Barr that his conclusions were not inaccurate. If Mueller told Barr that directly, did Barr lie?

We have his report, we have Barrs letter. on what points do they contradict?

Spence said Barrs letter inappropriately exonerates trump. fine. let’s see the text of Muellers report, which contradicts Barrs letter?

i don’t care if Muellers report used the word “may”, and Barr used the word “shall”.
i don’t care about nuance. was Barrs letter an accurate, reasonable summary of the Mueller report, or not?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

scottw · 05-01-2019, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS

Show me other posts where I've repeatedly claimed I'm smart? If you can I'll apologize.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you repeatedly repeat yourself...you should apologize for that

scottw · 05-01-2019, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence said Barrs letter ....

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence is always wrong....soooo

PaulS · 05-01-2019, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottw

you repeatedly repeat yourself...you should apologize for that

I don't think I repeat myself any more than anybody else here
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch · 05-01-2019, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS

And yet you constantly insult people here. If that's not an angry man tell me what it is? Show me other posts where I've repeatedly claimed I'm smart? If you can I'll apologize. If you can't it proves you're an angry scummy liar.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I said that you keep repeating this "angry" tic. Show me where I've said that you repeatedly claimed you are smart. If you can't you're a scummy angry twit.

scottw · 05-02-2019, 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS

I don't think I repeat myself any more than anybody else here
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

OK...you and GS are tied for the lead.....

spence · 05-06-2019, 12:47 PM

OUCH

Quote:

More than 370 former federal prosecutors who worked in Republican and Democratic administrations have signed on to a statement asserting special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s findings would have produced obstruction charges against President Trump — if not for the office he held.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.0bc5fd796b15

scottw · 05-06-2019, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence

OUCH

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.0bc5fd796b15

quintessential deomcrap.... 347 former something or others have signed a letter blah...blah...blah.....the recycling of tactics is really amusing...OOOH Bill Weld...is he still alive?