So is Barr the Attorney General or Trumps personal lawyer?

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Some of the conduct Mueller scrutinized, for purposes of investigating possible obstruction justice, preceded the existence of the grand jury.

True, but if that conduct continued after the grand jury was impaneled, wouldn't it all come into play?
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,211.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
If you believe Barr’s remark, ”I think it was written by one of his staff people,” supports the notion Barr lied, you are very mistaken.

First, the obvious. Barr said he “thinks” he knows who wrote it, he isn’t stating or asserting such a thought as a fact. Neither is he expressing that he believes what he is “thinking” is factual. Hence, his remark about the letter is entirely consistent with his prior commentary, since he isn’t claiming to “know” or claiming as a fact that members of Mueller’s team wrote the letter.

Second, the letter is signed by Mueller. The letter is not signed by a staff person. Hence, Barr carefully phrased his remark as to what he “thinks,” since, after all, Mueller signed the letter and since the letter bares his (Mueller’s) signature, Mueller may have in fact composed the letter.

Or maybe Mueller made a draft of points he wanted made in a letter and provided his draft to a staff person to compose a letter incorporating the points Mueller wanted. Mueller then reviewed the letter for approval and signed it.

Either way, you’ve cited to nothing that demonstrates Barr lied.

Needing 5 paragraphs to try and explain away the obvious holes in Barr's story tells me all I need to know about how forthright he's being. The only question is why someone would feel the need to write them rather than just accept the obvious.
 
Upvote 0

Zanting

not so new
Mar 15, 2012
2,366
464
✟47,296.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It amazes me that Trump supporters don't seem to comprehend that while Trump won the election by the rules of the Electoral College, that the citizens of the US voted for a different candidate, by a 3 million person margin.
where did you get your stats from?
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
where did you get your stats from?
I think that the popular vote total of the 2016 election is not seriously contested by anyone. Even Republicans agree that Hillary got a majority of the popular vote.
 
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

This may be of assistance to you...

“Nexus to an official proceeding: United States v. Aguilar (1995);Arthur Andersen v. United States (2005). Obstruction of justice law, Mueller’s report said, generally requires a nexus or connection to an official proceeding. Mueller cited Aguilar for the requirement that the nexus must be to pending “judicial or grand jury proceedings.” The nexus also can include a connection to a “pending” federal agency proceeding, or a congressional inquiry or investigation.”

(my bold and underline)

Three Supreme Court Obstruction Rulings Guided Mueller's Team | National Law Journal
 
  • Informative
Reactions: whatbogsends
Upvote 0

whatbogsends

Senior Veteran
Aug 29, 2003
10,370
8,314
Visit site
✟281,129.00
Faith
Atheist
Upvote 0

JLB777

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 18, 2012
5,905
1,258
✟403,811.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It amazes me that Trump supporters don't seem to comprehend that while Trump won the election by the rules of the Electoral College, that the citizens of the US voted for a different candidate, by a 3 million person margin.


Says who?


The polls.


Did they count 10 Million unregistered voters?



LOL!!!



Trump 2020.


MAGA!!!



JLB
 
Upvote 0

whatbogsends

Senior Veteran
Aug 29, 2003
10,370
8,314
Visit site
✟281,129.00
Faith
Atheist
Says who?

The polls.

Did they count 10 Million unregistered voters?

LOL!!!

Trump 2020.

MAGA!!!

JLB

Your refusal to accept even the most basic of facts is noted. Given this perspective, it is unsurprising that you've thrown your lot in with Trump.
 
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

JLB777

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 18, 2012
5,905
1,258
✟403,811.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Your refusal to accept even the most basic of facts is noted. Given this perspective, it is unsurprising that you've thrown your lot in with Trump.



The basic of facts is there is no crime that our President committed.




JLB
 
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

TheBear

NON-WOKED
Jan 2, 2002
20,646
1,811
✟296,671.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Karl Marx and Saul Alinsky would be proud!

“Accuse Your Enemy Of What You Are Doing, As You Are Doing It To Create Confusion”

They are very afraid of Barr, because he WILL be looking into everything from the Steele dossier, how Obama and the Clintons used this false, unsubstantiated and paid for report to secure a FISA court order to illegally SPY, that's right; SPY on their opposition campaign, their involvement with Fusion GPS, and the Clinton Foundation. If there was any collusion/coordination with Russia, let's look at the REAL culprits.

Oh yeah, baby. It's all coming out. :oldthumbsup:
 
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
Karl Marx and Saul Alinsky would be proud!

“Accuse Your Enemy Of What You Are Doing, As You Are Doing It To Create Confusion”

They are very afraid of Barr, because he WILL be looking into everything from the Steele dossier, how Obama and the Clintons used this false, unsubstantiated and paid for report to secure a FISA court order to illegally SPY, that's right; SPY on their opposition campaign, their involvement with Fusion GPS, and the Clinton Foundation. If there was any collusion/coordination with Russia, let's look at the REAL culprits.

Oh yeah, baby. It's all coming out. :oldthumbsup:

Oh dear....this one again...

Just a couple of questions...

Could you please show where anything in Steele’s report has been shown to be “false”...?

Do you realise that Carter Page was under investigation for his contacts with Russia well before the publication of Steele’s report?
 
Upvote 0

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,565
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,939.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.
 
Upvote 0

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,565
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,939.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Needing 5 paragraphs to try and explain away the obvious holes in Barr's story tells me all I need to know about how forthright he's being. The only question is why someone would feel the need to write them rather than just accept the obvious.

Laboring under the delusion that brevity is a hallmark of veracity and your irrational, arbitrary line drawing of what is too lengthy as an indication of dishonesty.

The "obvious" is the English language. Barr was asked about Mueller's team, not Mueller. The subject of Crist's question was Mueller's team, not Mueller. The substance of Crist's question makes a distinction between Mueller's team and Mueller, "members of the Special Counsel’s team," renders the team the subject matter, not the special counsel.

But adhere to your misguided methodology of evaluating the veracity of statements by their lengthy, and ignore the more pertinent, objective methodology of focusing upon sentence structure, words used, and the logic of the statement.
 
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
9,565
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,939.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
This may be of assistance to you...

“Nexus to an official proceeding: United States v. Aguilar (1995);Arthur Andersen v. United States (2005). Obstruction of justice law, Mueller’s report said, generally requires a nexus or connection to an official proceeding. Mueller cited Aguilar for the requirement that the nexus must be to pending “judicial or grand jury proceedings.” The nexus also can include a connection to a “pending” federal agency proceeding, or a congressional inquiry or investigation.”

(my bold and underline)

Three Supreme Court Obstruction Rulings Guided Mueller's Team | National Law Journal

What's conspicuously absent is your statement interference or attempted with the "investigation" was sufficient.
 
Upvote 0