Barr received a letter from the head of the Mueller's team (Mueller) which expresses concerns about his summary letter. When asked if you "Reports have emerged recently … that members of the special counsel’s team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24th letter, that it does not adequately or accurately, necessarily, portray the report’s findings. Do you know what they’re referencing with that?" about potential concerns by the team you answer "No, I don’t. I think, I think, I suspect that they probably wanted, you know, more put out. But in my view, I was not interested in putting out summaries or trying to summarize, because I think any summary regardless of who prepares it not only runs the risk of, you know, being under-inclusive or over-inclusive but also, you know, would trigger a lot of discussion and analysis that really should await everything coming out at once.". I think the obvious, honest answer would be "i'm not sure if this is what you're referring to, but I did receive a letter from Mueller indicating... "and cite what Mueller had communicated. Indicating that he has no idea as to what they're referencing is either dishonest or idiotic.
You can defend it all you want, but his answer certainly is not "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".
Have you convinced yourself that the phrase "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" magically validates your argument? Because, it doesn't. Should I repeatedly invoke such a phrase, to the same number of times as you have, my view is not suddenly right or correct.
Now, Mueller was not the subject of Crist's question. The subject of Crist's query was Mueller's team. Barr was asked about the team, not Mueller. Barr answered what he was asked, which is to say Barr was asked about the team, not Mueller, and Barr gave an answer about the team.
Furthermore, the context in which the question from Crist to Barr on April 9th or 10th, 2019, was a New York Times and Washington Post report on April 3rd that "some investigators" of Mueller's team, not Mueller, were of the view Barr's summary "failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry and that they were more troubling for President Trump than Mr. Barr indicated."
Some on Mueller’s Team Say Report Was More Damaging Than Barr Revealed
The WaPo article references and discusses "members" of Mueller's team, and not Mueller himself.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...2f46684196e_story.html?utm_term=.859a801472ea
The only way one, anyone, can arrive to your conclusion of dishonesty, is by taking an illogical and irrational reading of the English language. Compounding the illogical reading and understanding of the English language underlying your argument is the context of news reports about investigators and members of Mueller's team, not Mueller himself.
I think the obvious, honest answer would be "i'm not sure if this is what you're referring to, but I did receive a letter from Mueller indicating...
I do not care what you subjectively think. What you subjectively think is no more relevant than what I subjectively think. The "I think" approach is checkmated as soon as Barr discloses he thought what he gave was the honest answer. After all, what your "thoughts" are no more superior than Barr's "thoughts." Quite simply, more is needed.
Regardless, the honest is the answer to the question. Mueller was not the subject of the question. Barr was not asked about whether Barr knew of Mueller's thoughts, opinion, or sentiment regarding Barr's summary. Barr was not asked if he had received any correspondence from Mueller. Rather, Mueller's team was the subject of the question. Barr answered about Mueller's team, thereby answering the question, and on this basis, there is no lie.
You are offering additional information that was not asked for, and is not needed to answer the question because the question does not ask for that information, and does not answer the question presented.
Your view does not rationally or logically show Barr lied.