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: 13
47
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2019 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

You dont know what perjury is.
You may claim to know others thought others dont have that super power.
Unless you have evidence Barr asked Mueler specifically if mueller supported Barrs conclusion?

You dont because no perjury occured.
Simple




posted on May, 1 2019 @ 11:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

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.


The Attorney General was not on trial. He reports to Congress every week as one of his duties.



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Our rights dont only apply in court.
You simply are ignorant once again of our laws.

By all means keep that on display it is amusing.

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



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 11:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: PilSungMtnMan
Mueller works for Barr. Mueller had one job; find collusion.


Mueller NEVER had that job. Mueller's job description is in the brief which made him Special Counsel.


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.


Why do you keep mentioning Trump and the Democrats?

Did Trump or the Democrats make Barr lie?



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

He reports to Congress every week as one of his duties


Really?

As he is part of the executive branch how does that work exactly?

www.justice.gov...]The principal duties of the Attorney General are to:

Represent the United States in legal matters.
 

Supervise and direct the administration and operation of the offices, boards, divisions, and bureaus that comprise the Department.
 

Furnish advice and opinions, formal and informal, on legal matters to the President and the Cabinet and to the heads of the executive departments and agencies of the government, as provided by law.
 

Make recommendations to the President concerning appointments to federal judicial positions and to positions within the Department, including U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals.
 

Represent or supervise the representation of the United States Government in the Supreme Court of the United States and all other courts, foreign and domestic, in which the United States is a party or has an interest as may be deemed appropriate.
 

Perform or supervise the performance of other duties required by statute or Executive Order



You making up crap doesn't help
In fact it is just silly
Stop with the lies

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



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 11:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.



Your conclusion based on what evidence?



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Loathe as I am to link CNN, here is an excerpt from a partial transcript of today's hearing:


BARR: I think they had a exhaust that canvassed the evidence exhaustively. They didn't reach a decision on. But the question you've (ph) just been asking raises a point I wanted to say when Senator Hirono was talking, which is how did we get to the point here where the evidence is now that the president was falsely accused of colluding with the Russians and accused of being treasonous and accused of being a Russian agent? And the evidence now is that was without a basis. And two years of his administration have been dominated by allegations that have now been proven false. And, you know, to listen to some of the rhetoric, you would think that the Mueller Report had found the opposite. [14:10:00]


That says a lot.
edit on 1-5-2019 by jadedANDcynical because: fixed link tag



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

None
Pulled from the posters posterior
Stink and all



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 11:31 PM
link   
www.foxnews.com...

"In context, it's obvious Barr wasn't being asked whether Mueller agreed with his ‘conclusion’ meaning his four-page summary, his framing of his facts, etc., but about his ultimate conclusion on obstruction of justice," Griswold wrote.



Your busted chronaut
Parroting maddow?

Real nice clark....



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 11:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.



Your conclusion based on what evidence?





Democrack evidence of course !! 😎



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 11:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
Democrats just make up their own stories. They take something and add nebulous adjectives and made-up hypothetcals along with peppered details! After they finish their short 7-minute fairytale, they leave Barr about 10 seconds to reply.

They are embarrassing, and if it wasn't so pitiful, it would be laughable.


I am way past ready to see them tarred, feathered and ran out of DC on a rail like in "Oh brother where are thou?" the movie.



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Democrat evidence =

Democracy dollars, its the new thing from Kirsten Gillibrand!



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 11:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: xuenchen

Democrat evidence =

Democracy dollars, its the new thing from Kirsten Gillibrand!



Kirsten Guiltybrand, advisor with NXIVM 😎




posted on May, 2 2019 @ 12:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.



Your conclusion based on what evidence?


The letters, the transcript of the meeting and the YouTube stream.



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Vlad Putin or Chairman Xi, is that YOU playing the part of ChrO?

I suppose you would be a lackey for one of those. Paid lackey.



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 12:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.



Your conclusion based on what evidence?


The letters, the transcript of the meeting and the YouTube stream.





posted on May, 2 2019 @ 12:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
Bahahahaha. That was hilarious. Pretty clear Barr is just another shill. He was straight up embarrassed today. What a joke.

The alt right contingent of ATS took a big hit today, but I'm sure they will continue their delusional nonsense and spew some terrible excuses and think Trump actually came out on top in this. LMAO! Insanity is bad. Get off the Trump train before it jumps the track.


Only fools read that as Barr was embarrassed. People saw the D's act like total absolute IDIOTS.

I hope the Libertarians replace the D's and the Greens get antifa and PETA people.



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 12:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
www.foxnews.com...

"In context, it's obvious Barr wasn't being asked whether Mueller agreed with his ‘conclusion’ meaning his four-page summary, his framing of his facts, etc., but about his ultimate conclusion on obstruction of justice," Griswold wrote.

Your busted chronaut
Parroting maddow?

Real nice clark....


I'm sorry, I don't watch the 24/7 opinionfests that they call 'news' in the US. I get enough of that here.

So far, some on ATS have tried to suggest:
- that the letter was a phone call about something else entirely.
- that the Mueller report doesn't differ from Barr's summary in context, nature, and substance of Mueller's office's work and conclusions
- that the question was something other than it was.
- that the situation was something to do with the Democrats.
- that I meant something that I clearly didn't write (you guys are always telling me what I'm doing and thinking. Thank you, otherwise i'd never know
).
- That "Trump is innocent, innocent I say, everyone is picking on him, bwah, bwah, sob, sniffle..."
- That Barr's summary did fully capture the context, nature, and substance of Mueller's work and conclusions.
- That there is no evidence, despite everything being in the public domain.
- That it is somehow invalid because some newsreader they don't like said it.
- That it has something to do with weird team dynamics (based on the assumption that Mueller wasn't in his own team).
- That Barr was somehow invoking Miranda rights and/or wasn't under legal obligation to tell the truth to Congress.
- That the AG doesn't regularly report to Congress (despite such reporting being mandated by many sections of the US code).

In short, get it together guys, you all seem to have totally different and often lame excuses.




posted on May, 2 2019 @ 01:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.



Your conclusion based on what evidence?


The letters, the transcript of the meeting and the YouTube stream.





I wondered why I had never heard of 'The Beau Brummels', so I clicked on the video. Now I know why.

Xuen, you are a paragon of the infinitesimally inconsequential.




posted on May, 2 2019 @ 03:37 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

just sat through the full session with w barr all it proved was that all politicians are a bunch of mealy mouthed #s especially the rep from hawaii personal attacking barr bunch of turds




top topics



 
47
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join