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: 14
47
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2019 @ 03:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

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 ".


Barr wrote the a simple set of conclusions in a 4 page letter. Not a summary of the report. He stated that at the time he wrote the letter, during the answer to Rep. Crisp and again yesterday. Mueller referring to it as a summary of the report does not make it so. Mueller reported to Barr. His job is now done. He has nothing to do with this anymore and his characterisation of what his boss wrote is irrelevant.




posted on May, 2 2019 @ 05:52 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Lol
Just quit it with the poory crafted parroting of the msm.
It is silly.



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 06:52 AM
link   
Chr0,

We are going to bake you a crow pie if you keep up the high level BS or is yours Piled higher and Deeper ?

Had an old administrator when I first joined and outfit with engineers and scientists. He would say a BS degree was Bull snip, the MS was MORE snip and the PhD was Piled higher and deeper. Why did he say that? He worked with people like us for years and so many of them were just like that.



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.

Stop watching fake news and their spin. The summary was never criticized. Wanting more information out is not criticizing what was put out already.



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 09:52 AM
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.

And Congress is supposed to be non-partisan and after the truth not soundbites. Congress is not above the Executive branch.



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
Marble-mouth Leahy is trying to get something out......????.....Is it just me? I only understand one out five words he mouths.

ETA: Even Barr is having a hard time understanding him.


From what I witnessed of this I'd say the gobbeldygook was stronger from Barr.



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 10:14 AM
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?

It means there is no lie to excuse. Even the Democrats questioning him conceded after he explained his answer.

This is all because rather than seek the truth Democrats were out for gotcha moments and phrased questions in such a way as to try to catch Barr in lies rather than get to the truth. It came back to bite them in the ass because Barr phrased his answers matching their trickiness.

A question about truth would be .. "Have you heard from Mueller regarding your summary". "What did he say?"



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

Of course you do. You are a crazy liberal who is raging with TDS saying how evil he is and destroying the rule of law, and when I prove with sources Obama did what you claim Trump did you cover your ears and run away.



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 10:21 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.

You still can't quote the lie. Put it together, prove the lie, so far you just keep saying it happened.



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Jerry Nadler after Barr stood him up this morning..

www.foxnews.com...

Blah..Blah..Blah..the sound of a powerless little man.



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: InTheLight

Of course you do. You are a crazy liberal who is raging with TDS saying how evil he is and destroying the rule of law, and when I prove with sources Obama did what you claim Trump did you cover your ears and run away.


I am neither Liberal nor crazy just an observer, but having worked in the court system, I recognize the tactics Barr used to confuse and deflect. Gobbeldygook at it's finest, but then he wasn't answering questions from seasoned lawyers, now was he.
edit on 15CDT10America/Chicago036101031 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

lol
half of the senate are "lawyers"
guess you are leaning on the descriptor "seasoned"?



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: InTheLight

lol
half of the senate are "lawyers"
guess you are leaning on the descriptor "seasoned"?


They are not practicing lawyers from what I am reading about their duties.



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight
but 50% of them are lawyers?
was barr to be submitted to practicing lawyers?
I was under the impression he was to testify before the senate judiciary committee?
Do the committees rules allow for people to be questioned by others than the senators?



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: InTheLight
but 50% of them are lawyers?
was barr to be submitted to practicing lawyers?
I was under the impression he was to testify before the senate judiciary committee?
Do the committees rules allow for people to be questioned by others than the senators?


Again, he should be questioned by seasoned lawyers who know how to play the gobbeldygook game, that is, after reading the unredacted report.



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: InTheLight
but 50% of them are lawyers?
was barr to be submitted to practicing lawyers?
I was under the impression he was to testify before the senate judiciary committee?
Do the committees rules allow for people to be questioned by others than the senators?


Again, he should be questioned by seasoned lawyers who know how to play the gobbeldygook game, that is, after reading the unredacted report.


What crime has Barr supposed to have committed? Hearings done by congress are expressly to determine whether to indict someone. Then there will be an actual trial where the accused may be question by a prosecutor and attorneys. While at the same time, the accused may have their own attorneys present to respond.
edit on 5 2 2019 by CynConcepts because: (no reason given)


It seems that Nadler and the Dems are putting the cart before the horse here, doesn't it?
edit on 5 2 2019 by CynConcepts because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

Why does it require a lawyer to get truth? Are we trying to get truth, or gotcha moments? Don't bother answering, we already know.



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

Except they actually do act as such in the case of an impeachment, as after a person is impeached by the House, the Senate tries the defendant. In the case of the President the Chief Justice presides in the trial in the Senate.



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: InTheLight
but 50% of them are lawyers?
was barr to be submitted to practicing lawyers?
I was under the impression he was to testify before the senate judiciary committee?
Do the committees rules allow for people to be questioned by others than the senators?


Again, he should be questioned by seasoned lawyers who know how to play the gobbeldygook game, that is, after reading the unredacted report.


What crime has Barr supposed to have committed? Hearings done by congress are expressly to determine whether to indict someone. Then there will be an actual trial where the accused may be question by a prosecutor and attorneys. While at the same time, the accused may have their own attorneys present to respond.


Let's wait to hear from Mueller as to why he had a problem with Barr's summary.



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: InTheLight

Why does it require a lawyer to get truth? Are we trying to get truth, or gotcha moments? Don't bother answering, we already know.


Who here would be able to see the truth if exposed?




top topics



 
47
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join