• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

So is Barr the Attorney General or Trumps personal lawyer?

Discussion in 'American Politics' started by Goonie, May 4, 2019.

  1. Zanting

    Zanting Newbie

    +103
    Christian
    Private
    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.
     
  2. Zanting

    Zanting Newbie

    +103
    Christian
    Private
    You don't have to be a democrat to believe the noise they make.
     
  3. Allandavid

    Allandavid Well-Known Member

    +5,081
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    And the evidence is right before your eyes and ears...
     
  4. Allandavid

    Allandavid Well-Known Member

    +5,081
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    How do you know what Mueller stated...?
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 2
    • List
  5. KCfromNC

    KCfromNC Regular Member

    +5,943
    Atheist
    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.
     
  6. Zanting

    Zanting Newbie

    +103
    Christian
    Private
    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.
     
  7. Zanting

    Zanting Newbie

    +103
    Christian
    Private
    I read and then posted the full report...not bits and pieces.
     
  8. Zanting

    Zanting Newbie

    +103
    Christian
    Private
    And yours too
     
  9. whatbogsends

    whatbogsends Senior Veteran

    +3,581
    Atheist
    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 Informative x 1
    • List
  10. whatbogsends

    whatbogsends Senior Veteran

    +3,581
    Atheist
    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.
     
  11. whatbogsends

    whatbogsends Senior Veteran

    +3,581
    Atheist
    And you have a link to the transcript of the phone call?
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • List
  12. JLB777

    JLB777 Newbie Supporter

    +844
    Non-Denom
    Married

    According to the New York Times?


    Lol!!!!!


    :ebil::ebil:


    JLB
     
  13. JLB777

    JLB777 Newbie Supporter

    +844
    Non-Denom
    Married

    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
     
  14. Allandavid

    Allandavid Well-Known Member

    +5,081
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    So, you’re relying on the word of someone who has demonstrated himself to be a liar over these matters...

    Right...
     
  15. Allandavid

    Allandavid Well-Known Member

    +5,081
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    Oh good grief.....!
     
  16. bhsmte

    bhsmte Newbie

    +11,518
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    Lets see what mueller says when he answers questions. Then, we would have had equal input from both.
     
  17. Rion

    Rion Annuit Cœptis Supporter

    +6,196
    United States
    Lutheran
    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)?
     
  18. whatbogsends

    whatbogsends Senior Veteran

    +3,581
    Atheist
    No, according to the Mueller Report, which the NY Times was referencing.

    Feel free to stay in your fact free bubble.
     
  19. Rion

    Rion Annuit Cœptis Supporter

    +6,196
    United States
    Lutheran
    Single
    c3b82bc34324890ed425e930b88136a2.png
    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
     
  20. NotreDame

    NotreDame Domer Supporter

    +1,442
    United States
    Pentecostal
    Married
    US-Others
    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.

    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.

    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?
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
Loading...