It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Barr testimony before Senate Judiciary Committee

page: 12
47
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2019 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

How exactly will that happen barcs?
The dems cant even come together to start impeachment let alone have the votes in the Senate to make it stick.
Trump beat the left.

Your delusion is amusing tho.




posted on May, 1 2019 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut

I watched the hearing, I don't need FOX.

Where in the letter Mueller sent to Barr did Mueller dispute Barr's conclusions? I am trying to figure out what the lie is.


From paragraph 3 of Mueller's letter to Barr dated March 27, 2019:

"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."

The lie was that there was 'no objection to Barr's summary to Congress', when there actually was.


Barr did not release a summary...according to his own very clear response to Rep. Crist.
Hopefully you understand now.



Barr wrote a summary letter to Congress. The one that Mueller referred to as "the summary letter the department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 ".



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Relax and re-think your positions.

You seem to be chomping the bait whole.




posted on May, 1 2019 @ 10:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Failure to provide a Defensive briefing to Trump from the Obama administration is unfathomable, Barr can not think of any reason why it did not happen and says the circumstances should have ensured it did happen if you are concerned about Russian interference.

Interesting bit that.....
Almost as if it was a set up?



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Foreign upside down thinking.
Gotta love foreign leftys.
Man do they hate the bad orange man.



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut

I watched the hearing, I don't need FOX.

Where in the letter Mueller sent to Barr did Mueller dispute Barr's conclusions? I am trying to figure out what the lie is.


From paragraph 3 of Mueller's letter to Barr dated March 27, 2019:

"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."

The lie was that there was 'no objection to Barr's summary to Congress', when there actually was.


Barr did not release a summary...according to his own very clear response to Rep. Crist.
Hopefully you understand now.



The summary letter is on public record (I linked to it previously) and is referred to in Mueller's responsive letter. It exists.

The exact question, from Senator Chris Van Hollen, was, "Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion", to which Barr replied, "I don't know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion". (emphasis added to clarify)

There is no denial of making a conclusion there. Quite the contrary, Barr was asked directly about his conclusion and replied with a direct mention of his conclusion.



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Parse it all you like wannabe kiwi, no perjury.
Quote the whole question, read up on what constitutes perjury in the good ole usofa.
You are incorrect and ignorant of the actual law.

Trump won



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut

I watched the hearing, I don't need FOX.

Where in the letter Mueller sent to Barr did Mueller dispute Barr's conclusions? I am trying to figure out what the lie is.


From paragraph 3 of Mueller's letter to Barr dated March 27, 2019:

"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."

The lie was that there was 'no objection to Barr's summary to Congress', when there actually was.

Ah no, there is no objection. They had a phone conversation, Barr asked Mueller if he disagreed with anything in the summary, Mueller said no. Wanting more information released is not an objection to a summary. Stop watching fake news.

I will give you another chance, what was in Barr's summary that Mueller has claimed is inaccurate?


The actual letter, sent from Mueller to Barr on March 27, and which criticizes Barr's summary of the Mueller report, is on public record.

As is Barr's preceding summary of the Mueller report which he wrote to Congress.



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 10:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: shooterbrody

The absolute best exchange was the one where blumenthal asked for barr's notes on his conversation with mueller and barr told him no. LMAO, barr is savage. Just the right guy to stand up to these morons.


Barr is supposed to be open and truthful before Congress. He's not supposed to be criminal and uphold Miranda rights as defense against incriminating himself.



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: chr0naut

Your assumption is that the full context of the Mueller report
would somehow be different or conflict with the Barr summary.

Or should I say your faulty assumption?


Nope.

My conclusion is that Barr was aware that Mueller was dissatisfied with the way his report had been summarized and when Barr was questioned directly about Mueller's dissatisfaction of that summary, he lied about it, feigning ignorance.



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 10:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: chr0naut

Why take muellers word for it?

You can see Barr’s letter, right?

You can see the mueller report, right?

So you show me where Barr misconstrued muellers findings on obstruction where he quoted muellers report and said mueller neither recommended charging or exonerated trump.

This whole story, again coming from people who didn’t think Hillary’s team destroying subpoenaed evidence was obstruction, and who lied to us about collusion for two years, is laughable

We have all of the documents, and yet there main argument now is Barr sent a letter two weeks before the public got to see the info, and that letter although accurate about the conclusions of the report didn’t get muellers feelings quite right

Pathetic


The issue isn't really about Trump, or even about the Mueller report.

The issue is that Barr lied before Congress in answer to a simple and direct question.



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: shooterbrody

The absolute best exchange was the one where blumenthal asked for barr's notes on his conversation with mueller and barr told him no. LMAO, barr is savage. Just the right guy to stand up to these morons.


Barr is supposed to be open and truthful before Congress. He's not supposed to be criminal and uphold Miranda rights as defense against incriminating himself.

Wrong
We respect our rights here.
Sorry you foreigners don't understand that concept.



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Almighty telrpath?
Lol
Delusion is a stinky cologne.

Context and media spin is not in any way conclusion.
They are lying to you and you are eager to gorge on it.






edit on 1/5/2019 by shooterbrody because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 10:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut

BTW
Barr also was kind enough to let everyone know what is being investigated.
5 eyes is in big trouble.
Lynch Rice Yates Comey Mccabe are all toast.
We will get to watch them all burn down.

All the deception of the last 3 years will be exposed.


And what does that have to do with the truthfulness of Barr's comments before Congress?

Perhaps there was a drunk who jaywalked in Detroit and whose cousin, Jerry, is a DEMOCRAT!!




posted on May, 1 2019 @ 10:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: chr0naut
Paragraph 3 second sentence.

I read it. Now what. Nowhere in there did Mueller say Barr misrepresented facts. He seemed to be saying the medias representation is what was off. So what was the media saying?


How does that excuse Barr's lie?



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 10:51 PM
link   
Mueller works for Barr. Mueller had one job; find collusion. He found none. Mueller can testify to his and Dems hearts content. It doesn’t change the results.

The Left is acting like the AG wrote the report. The summary was only viable for the week or so before the report was made available.

The summary. It’s purpose died once the report was released. Barr should ask the Dems to write a summary of the report, Barr can sign it, and still no collusion or obstruction.

I thought TDS was a silly way to poke fun at the Left. I’m fully convinced it’s a bonafide affliction they suffer. It’s interesting to watch it manifest itself throughout media and halls of Congress.

edit on 1-5-2019 by PilSungMtnMan because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

It has to do with the op.
Barrs testimony today.
The investigations revealed by Barr.

Things long discussed here shown to be true today.

The entire investigation was falsely started.
It is kind of a big deal.



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 10:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: chr0naut
Paragraph 3 second sentence.

I read it. Now what. Nowhere in there did Mueller say Barr misrepresented facts. He seemed to be saying the medias representation is what was off. So what was the media saying?


How does that excuse Barr's lie?

Barr dd not lie.
You are simply misinformed and incorrect.



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 10:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

Relax and re-think your positions.

You seem to be chomping the bait whole.




How cogent.




posted on May, 1 2019 @ 10:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut

Parse it all you like wannabe kiwi, no perjury.
Quote the whole question, read up on what constitutes perjury in the good ole usofa.
You are incorrect and ignorant of the actual law.

Trump won


The perjury had nothing to do with Trump.




top topics



 
47
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join