bearrock Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 What's the argument against Barr committing perjury in his earlier testimony? Did Mueller support the summary memo's conclusion? Barr said he didn't know. The letter says he did know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 6 minutes ago, bearrock said: What's the argument against Barr committing perjury in his earlier testimony? Did Mueller support the summary memo's conclusion? Barr said he didn't know. The letter says he did know. Slimy answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said: Slimy answer And a patently false one. https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-presses-attorney-general-barr-on-findings-of-mueller-report Quote VAN HOLLEN: Mr. Attorney General, the thing is you put this out there. I mean the President went out and tweeted the next day that he was exonerated. That wasn’t based on anything in the Mueller report, with respect to obstruction of justice. That was based on your assessment. That was on March 24th. And now you won’t elaborate – at all, as to how you reached that conclusion. Because I’m not asking you what is in the Mueller report, I’m asking you about your conclusion. Let me ask you this– BARR: It was the conclusion of a number of people, including me and I obviously am the Attorney General. It was also the conclusion of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. VAN HOLLEN: I understand. I’ve read your letters– BARR: And I will discuss that decision after the report is out– VAN HOLLEN: Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion? BARR: I don’t know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion. This is the best Barr can do? He thought the question was referring to unidentified members of the Mueller team? Edited May 1, 2019 by bearrock 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 48 minutes ago, HOF44 said: Man Barr is a slimy ****er. He knows just how to phrase things to imply meaning but not actually come out and say it and be pinned down. I don’t think he cares much for the rule of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simmsy Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 Doesn't the GOP know that at some point (very soon most likely) Dems will control all branches of government? The precedent they are setting is jaw droppingly stupid, lets hope the Dems have the balls to actually take advantage of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 4 minutes ago, Simmsy said: Doesn't the GOP know that at some point (very soon most likely) Dems will control all branches of government? The precedent they are setting is jaw droppingly stupid, lets hope the Dems have the balls to actually take advantage of it. They won’t control the Judicial for a LONG time. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 More often anymore i read these threads and keep my thoughts in because i really don't want the FBI at my door. Best be ready. It is clear that not only do they not care about the rule of law, they will use it against this country in every aspect they can. And when that fails them,, best be ready. because their lunatic followers WILL be convinced that everything is a lie, it has all been stolen from them, and they will not rely on laws they do not respect, and a constitution they couldn't give a **** about. "Peaceful transfer of power"... Hope so. But, best be ready. ~Bang 5 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 4 minutes ago, Bang said: More often anymore i read these threads and keep my thoughts in because i really don't want the FBI at my door. ~Bang No **** man. I think this all the time. 1 hour ago, skinsfan_1215 said: Watching Graham and Grassley use their questioning time to shill conspiracy nonsense about FBI misconduct and Steele is goddamn infuriating. There is no limit to the depth of Republican depravity when it comes to excusing treasonous activity by Donald Trump. Works too. Had a former intelligence pro tell me today that he thinks the Russians conspired to get Hillary elected and that all of this is just a coverup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 1 hour ago, Cooked Crack said: Yikes. This is a party made up of ghouls. Note: "The closest thing we have to Cheney" is considered a compliment 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 8 minutes ago, twa said: What is she referring to when she says "only to have him corroborate what Barr said about their conversation and understanding"? Is she arguing that Barr's testimony regarding Muller's opinion on the summary memo was not false/misleading? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 35 minutes ago, bearrock said: What is she referring to when she says "only to have him corroborate what Barr said about their conversation and understanding"? Is she arguing that Barr's testimony regarding Muller's opinion on the summary memo was not false/misleading? Quote The Democrats’ perjury/contempt/impeachment slander against Barr is based on the fact that, in prior congressional testimony, Barr was asked whether Mueller agreed with Barr’s conclusions about the report, including that there was insufficient evidence to charge obstruction. Barr replied that he did not know whether Mueller agreed. Democrats now contend that Barr must have known Mueller disagreed because he had Mueller’s letter. But Mueller’s letter doesn’t say he disagreed with Barr’s conclusion – it says he was unhappy with how his work was being perceived by the public. Barr and Mueller spoke by phone the day after Mueller sent his letter. If you wade through the first 13 paragraphs of the Post’s story, you finally find the bottom line: "When Barr pressed Mueller on whether he thought Barr’s memo to Congress was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not but felt that the media coverage of it was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said." https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/andrew-mccarthy-mueller-letter-barr-report-washington-post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 22 minutes ago, twa said: Come on man, as if Barr's summary wasn't specifically written in the fashion that is was in order to give right wing media a couple of weeks to set a narrative. Are you really trying to run with this person's idiotic opinion that "Oops the media got the summary all wrong?" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 I am not a fan of Harris. But that was a solid question. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 Woof. I'd put that in a 2020 ad. 3 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 This is like trying to figure out what the definition of is is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 55 minutes ago, twa said: Quote 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. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. That's the quote from Mueller's letter. There is no way to read that as "supporting" Barr's conclusion in the summary letter. Notice now that the narrative is shifting as well. Barr's answer to Van Hollen was that he didn't know whether Mueller supported Barr's conclusions. Now GOP and/or Barr seems to be pushing the storyline that he called Mueller the day after and asked whether Mueller felt that the letter was inaccurate. i would imagine Mueller probably stood by the letter, that there may be no actual inaccuracy, but the summary letter does not "capture the context, nature, and substance of [Mueller] Office's work and conclusions." But even if Mueller said, "you're right, I see that your letter to Congress was in fact accurate and fair", then Barr's answer to Van Hollen was still false (he would have known that Mueller supported the AG's conclusion in the summary letter). If conservative pundits want to set up the narrative that Mueller would come to Congress and corroborate a vague narrative about what was said between Mueller and Barr the day after, that's fine. Even if Mueller stood by the letter, conservative pundits would likely push the narrative that Mueller did not say that the summary letter by Barr was inaccurate (even if Mueller said the letter fails to fully capture the Mueller report's work and conclusion, because aha, there's technically no outright lie in the AG's letter, just a lot of misleading statements). But the point stands, either Mueller did not support Barr's conclusions in the summary letter (as he plainly did not in the letter to Barr) or he recanted and agreed that there was nothing wrong with the summary letter in the phone conversation the day after (as Barr and the GOP seems to be trying to push now). Of course, Barr presented arguably accurate (and I use the term very very loosely) letter to Congress, which turned out to be entirely misleading on several very salient points. So I wouldn't be surprised at all if his (vague and rather non-specific) recollection of day after phone conversation with Muller turns out to be entirely misleading as well. Either way, Barr's testimony to Congress, specifically, his answer to Van Hollen, was a clear lie. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 11 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said: This is like trying to figure out what the definition of is is. Is a tweet a suggestion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 Whoever on the Mod team that fixed the ignore function to include quoted stuff. Thank you interesting strategy. Flipping his style on him by getting vague so dancing around it with a vague answer is harder. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 and now he's off his script. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, twa said: Is a tweet a suggestion? Tweet is a manner of communication. The content of the tweet would determine whether it is a suggestion to open an investigation. Whether suggested by tweet, phone, email, in person, or by pigeon, what difference would it make? 2 hours ago, @SkinsGoldPants said: and now he's off his script. So Mueller signed a letter drafted by a staff that did not match his views? That's the best he could come up with? Edited May 1, 2019 by bearrock 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 Bill Barr is just so bad at this. Like we know the answer to "Has anyone at the WH suggested you open investigations into anyone?" is yes, and his attempts to play coy are so asinine that they don't even remotely cover for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 21 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said: Bill Barr is just so bad at this. Like we know the answer to "Has anyone at the WH suggested you open investigations into anyone?" is yes, and his attempts to play coy are so asinine that they don't even remotely cover for him. 1. Look what he has to work with. 2. Why waste the effort? Trumpers don’t care how ridiculous or obvious the lies are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now