So is Barr the Attorney General or Trumps personal lawyer?

Zanting

not so new
Mar 15, 2012
2,366
464
✟47,296.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Like whom?
One could start with testimonies of Comey and Paige et al...all this information is out there for public review.


Like what?
How about misrepresenting Mueller's letter to Barr to mean something entirely different than what it states and ignoring what Barr stated about his phone conversation with Mueller. Mueller did not say he disagreed with the conclusions made public by Barr about collusion or obstruction. He stated that he didn't like the way the media was portraying the conclusions made by Barr et al.
 
Upvote 0

Zanting

not so new
Mar 15, 2012
2,366
464
✟47,296.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I'm not a Democrat. The facts put forth in the Muller Report demonstrate a clear case of obstruction. While I agree that politicians in both parties, as well as respectively biased media outlets, spin the facts to align with their own narrative, in this instance, the Democrat "narrative" aligns with the facts.

Trump did benefit from the Russian interference, he welcomed that interference, he has repeatedly taken Putin's word over our intelligence agencies to claim that it wasn't Russia who meddled (which is providing comfort to an adversary), and has tried to stop or hinder the investigation in various ways by his powers as President.

That Trump's supporters continue to bury their heads in the sand is entirely predictable. Trump was correct when he said "I could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose a single vote."

You don't have to be a democrat to believe the noise they make.
 
Upvote 0

Allandavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 30, 2016
8,056
6,929
70
Sydney
✟230,565.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Mueller did not say he disagreed with the conclusions made public by Barr about collusion or obstruction. He stated that he didn't like the way the media was portraying the conclusions made by Barr et al.

How do you know what Mueller stated...?
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,106.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Not just my belief at all, nor just my claim at all...although I know that often people like to make it personal...nor am I ignoring anything.

I can't help but notice you didn't actually address the quotes I posted. Nor did you post any from the report supporting your previous claims. That's surprising, given how confident you seemed that they support your opinion.
 
Upvote 0

Zanting

not so new
Mar 15, 2012
2,366
464
✟47,296.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
How do you know what Mueller stated...?
Because it`s was submitted as evidence of Barr`s response to Mueller`s letter. It`s all documented, and Barr related to this phone call during his hearing with congress. Documented phone call...so no hearsay or we don`t know what Mueller really said.
 
Upvote 0

Zanting

not so new
Mar 15, 2012
2,366
464
✟47,296.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I can't help but notice you didn't actually address the quotes I posted. Nor did you post any from the report supporting your previous claims. That's surprising, given how confident you seemed that they support your opinion.
I read and then posted the full report...not bits and pieces.
 
Upvote 0

whatbogsends

Senior Veteran
Aug 29, 2003
10,370
8,314
Visit site
✟281,129.00
Faith
Atheist
Where are getting your information?

What “relationship” with Russia are referring to?

JLB

Firstly, the Mueller report lays out numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia,

"Donald J. Trump and 18 of his associates had at least 140 contacts with Russian nationals and WikiLeaks, or their intermediaries, during the 2016 campaign and presidential transition, according to a New York Times analysis.

The report of Robert S. Mueller III, released to the public on Thursday, revealed at least 30 more contacts beyond those previously known. However, the special counsel said, “the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges.”"

Mueller Report Shows Depth of Connections Between Trump Campaign and Russians

Trump has gotten his financing from Russia for a long time. Most US banks stopped loaning to Trump in the 90s, after they got burned several times by him failing to pay back guaranteed loans.

"In terms of high-end product influx into the US, Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets," Donald Trump Jr. said at a New York real-estate conference that year. "Say, in Dubai, and certainly with our project in SoHo, and anywhere in New York. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."

https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-jr-said-money-pouring-in-from-russia-2018-2e

This article also lists several of his other business involvements in Russia, which contradict Trump's repeated claims of "I have no business in Russia"

Donald Trump's ties to Russia go back 30 years
 
  • Informative
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

whatbogsends

Senior Veteran
Aug 29, 2003
10,370
8,314
Visit site
✟281,129.00
Faith
Atheist
Where is the proof of such accusations?

The President’s efforts to fire Mueller and to falsify evidence about that effort;

· The President’s efforts to limit the scope of Mueller’s investigation to exclude his conduct; and

· The President’s efforts to prevent witnesses from cooperating with investigators probing him and his campaign.
Maybe you should read the Mueller report and see for yourself.
Hopefully, they will allow Mueller himself to testify (as he should). Previously, both Trump and Barr had said that Mueller should be allowed to testify, but Trump recently reversed his stance on that (just like he did when he claimed that he would testify) and has tweeted that Mueller shouldn't be allowed to testify, I'm not aware of any official actions taken by Trump to prevent Mueller from testifying yet, but that should all play out in the near future.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

whatbogsends

Senior Veteran
Aug 29, 2003
10,370
8,314
Visit site
✟281,129.00
Faith
Atheist
Because it`s was submitted as evidence of Barr`s response to Mueller`s letter. It`s all documented, and Barr related to this phone call during his hearing with congress. Documented phone call...so no hearsay or we don`t know what Mueller really said.

And you have a link to the transcript of the phone call?
 
Upvote 0

JLB777

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 18, 2012
5,905
1,258
✟403,811.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Donald J. Trump and 18 of his associates had at least 140 contacts with Russian nationals and WikiLeaks, or their intermediaries, during the 2016 campaign and presidential transition, according to a New York Times analysis.


According to the New York Times?


Lol!!!!!


:ebil::ebil:


JLB
 
Upvote 0

JLB777

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 18, 2012
5,905
1,258
✟403,811.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Maybe you should read the Mueller report and see for yourself.
Hopefully, they will allow Mueller himself to testify (as he should). Previously, both Trump and Barr had said that Mueller should be allowed to testify, but Trump recently reversed his stance on that (just like he did when he claimed that he would testify) and has tweeted that Mueller shouldn't be allowed to testify, I'm not aware of any official actions taken by Trump to prevent Mueller from testifying yet, but that should all play out in the near future.


You mean the report by the guy who was in on the selling of 25% of our Uranium to the Russians???


That Bob Mueller? LOL!!!!



That’s funny.




JLB
 
Upvote 0

Allandavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 30, 2016
8,056
6,929
70
Sydney
✟230,565.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Because it`s was submitted as evidence of Barr`s response to Mueller`s letter. It`s all documented, and Barr related to this phone call during his hearing with congress. Documented phone call...so no hearsay or we don`t know what Mueller really said.

So, you’re relying on the word of someone who has demonstrated himself to be a liar over these matters...

Right...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
So, you’re relying on the word of someone who has demonstrated himself to be a liar over these matters...

Right...

Lets see what mueller says when he answers questions. Then, we would have had equal input from both.
 
Upvote 0

Rion

Annuit Cœptis
Supporter
Oct 26, 2006
21,868
6,275
Nebraska
✟419,198.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Barr cannot legally release the full report because the redacted sections are under protection due to ongoing jury cases. Releasing that information would be illegal. Democrats think that they're going to get Barr charged with contempt for... adhering to the law and not violating 6(E)?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Zanting
Upvote 0

Rion

Annuit Cœptis
Supporter
Oct 26, 2006
21,868
6,275
Nebraska
✟419,198.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
c3b82bc34324890ed425e930b88136a2.png

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,562
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,630.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Why not? Would you condone a police chief doing the same? Or an Attorney General? Conflict of interest is a thing. The subject of an investigation should never have any control over that investigation. Being the President doesn't change that.


You're technically correct - it is a way of reading the language. However, most people don't consult a dictionary and thesaurus every time they speak. I contend that MOST people would not derive the same meaning that you're ascribing to Barr's words (or the words of his questioner). Perhaps Crist did truly mean his question in the precise, narrow manner in which you (and Barr?) have interpreted it. But somehow I doubt that.

ETA: When I was a kid, my parents would ask me "Rocks, did you brush your teeth?" before I went to bed. My inner lawyer eventually decided that it was technically not lying to say yes, provided I had brushed my teeth some time in the past. However, I still got in trouble for lying when my dad checked my toothbrush and found it dry.

Using semantics and narrow definitions of words and phrases so as to technically tell the truth is at best unethical, and at worst, still a lie (depending on who you ask). It should not be applauded, nor should it be seen as an admirable quality in our government officials.

Would you condone a police chief doing the same? Or an Attorney General? Conflict of interest is a thing. The subject of an investigation should never have any control over that investigation. Being the President doesn't change that.

What “should” or should not be done is irrelevant. I pose no position as to what “should” or “shouldn’t” happen. The point by Barr is obstruction cannot exist within a specific set of facts for a President when he terminates an investigation. Ostensibly, Barr is referring to the statutory crime of obstruction, based on his remarks. He may be speaking more abstractly, which is to say no obstruction outside the context of a statute under a certain set of facts.

Barr is asserting an element of obstruction is missing in his fact pattern, the element of intent/motive, hence no obstruction. In regards to your examples, if the subjects of your hypo lack the requisite intent/motive, then there’s no obstruction for ending the investigation. That’s the point.

You're technically correct - it is a way of reading the language. However, most people don't consult a dictionary and thesaurus every time they speak.

Well, I’m part of the “most” as I do not either, but I digress, your point lacks relevance. The fact is Barr was asked a specific question, with specific words used, and he answered the question honesty. There’s no point trying to play the role of the Pythia in the temple and seek a divine interpretation of what was “meant” to be asked but wasn’t, because of inartful wording by the person asking the question.

No point in guessing what was meant, especially since, well, the questioner May have meant to ask exactly what he did in fact pose as a query to Barr. I know it’s perhaps a shocking revelation that people actually meant to ask the question they in fact posed to someone.

But your retort is reflective of a wider, systemtic problem, share by many wanting to impugn the integrity of Barr, which is wanting an outcome, that outcome being Barr lied, and then conjuring poorly conceived arguments to support the conclusion.

To defend your claim Barr lied you have to resort to the mysticism of “spirits” and suggest the question asked wasn’t meant to be the question, although there’s no evidence or good reason to believe the questioner meant another question than the one specifically asked.

Resorting to the mystic arts of reasoning to arrive to a conclusion Barr lied should
at least begin to hint at the notion the argument and fact Barr lied are lacking and rationally unpersuasive.

Using semantics and narrow definitions of words and phrases so as to technically tell the truth is at best unethical

Except Barr did not do anything such thing, or better yet, there’s no evidence he did. Barr answered the specific question asked. Doesn’t make any sense to deride a person for comprehending what’s asked and answering the question posed. The problem here is doing so doesn’t fit your agenda. Your preconceived agenda is the problem.

And what ethical rule are you consulting?
What moral theory is it based on? What meta-ethical theory is it based on? Are you a moral realist, or a subjectivist, or a non-cognitivist, or an error theorist, or what?
 
Upvote 0