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: 20
47
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2019 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yes, it did not fully capture all of the conclusions. Show me where he talks about the substance of the conclusions and whether he agrees or disagrees.
edit on 3-5-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 3 2019 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

The only conclusions Mueller made in the full report was in regards to volume 1, the criminal issues. He did not make any conclusions regarding volume 2, the obstruction issue. No one is disputing Barr and Mueller's conclusions being different on Volume 1.

They are focused on volume 2 in which Mueller refused to provide his own conclusion and left it up to the DOJ to determine. Barr has no idea what Mueller's conclusions would be since he was never told. Mueller is the only one who can say what he was thinking since he did not share it with anyone.



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Great show me the synonyms for disagree in reference to conclusions.

So his summary did not have the entire report in it. How did you make the jump to them talking about conclusions? Where did Mueller talk about disagreeing with conclusions in his letter?



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I pointed this out earlier from your earlier post:



did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions.


For some reason you are refusing to read and understand that simple 5 letter word fully that Mueller inserted before capture. You and others keep leaving it out of your conversations. Why? It has meaning, just not a meaning that you want.



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

In his letter, Mueller complained that his office's "conclusions," PLURAL, were not being "fully" captured.

I don't understand your argument. This is simple and binary. Barr lied about knowing what Mueller's team was frustrated with, when he was asked, in his testimony to Congress, under oath.



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut

It is
The simple answer is you are incorrect
Barr did not lie as he did not know the minds of those on muelers team.
Evenso while he did speak to mueller and had a general idea of muelers thought Barr is not a telepath.
While that may be common in bag end it is not so here.


But Barr did know because Mueller sent him a letter about it. Barr is clearly not a telepath but I would assume he can read.


2 letters and a phone call!


... and still Barr says, "I don't know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion".

You'd think that letters and a phone call might have given him a hint.

did you deduce that from you special powers of discerning what people don't know?
did you acquire said powers from a childhood incident involving a Vegemite factory explosion?
too much capt feathersword?
let us in on your superpower origin story


Ohh, an Aussie & Wiggles reference.

Did you know I was road crew for a while with them, back when they were called "The Cockroaches"

But truly, I was born amazing and have been defending the Earth ever since. True story.



edit on 3/5/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Now you are mixing up multiple questions to try to create a lie (which still doesn't exist). When you need to lie to make your point you should quit.

This is the question about conclusions. There is nothing in that question about frustration.

Here is the question: "Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion"

Here is the answer: "I don't know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion"



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

"Fully", meaning Barr omitted vital stuff from his summary, which is what Mueller's team was frustrated with. Barr lied about understanding what the team found lacking in his summary.



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

I would call you Superman, he defends Truth, Justice, and the American way. Apparently you have given up on defending Truth though.



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 08:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: CynConcepts

"Fully", meaning Barr omitted vital stuff from his summary, which is what Mueller's team was frustrated with. Barr lied about understanding what the team found lacking in his summary.




That is not what the word fully means. Please show me where Mueller talks about vital stuff.



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




Now you are mixing up multiple questions to try to create a lie (which still doesn't exist). When you need to lie to make your point you should quit.


You are the one lying and deflecting.

April 1, 2019
Rep Charlie Crist: “Reports have emerged recently, general, 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?”

AG William: “No, I don’t.”

Barr lied. PERIOD




edit on 3-5-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Vital stuff like: "context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions."



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

That question has nothing to do with conclusions. You are mixing up two different questions, you don't even understand the arguments.



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Vital stuff like: "context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions."

The context, nature, and substance Mueller stated was 100% accurate? That is what Mueller stated in the phone call. So try again.
edit on 3-5-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: CynConcepts

In his letter, Mueller complained that his office's "conclusions," PLURAL, were not being "fully" captured.

I don't understand your argument. This is simple and binary. Barr lied about knowing what Mueller's team was frustrated with, when he was asked, in his testimony to Congress, under oath.


Barr only spoke to Mueller not the 'team'. He said Mueller was only concerned about how the Press was confused since there was not enough details to fully capture why he had made his conclusions.

Barr has honestly said that mueller and his team are the ones who should be asked, since he does not know anything other than what they had put in their investigative report.

Edit add: mueller had 19 pages of summary conclusions....Barr reduced it to 4 pages. It is obvious that 4 pages will not capture fully what 19 pages concluded. Also, 19 pages will not necessarily capture what 429 pages would have detailed in their investigative process of reasoning.
edit on 5 3 2019 by CynConcepts because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts



Barr only spoke to Mueller not the 'team'.


Barr got two letters before he made his phone call. Both letters represented "This Office" and its work and conclusions. "This office" included Mueller's team. Barr lied.



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




That is what Mueller stated in the phone call. So try again.


Says Barr, the proven liar, who refused to supply Congress the phone conversation transcript.

Try again.



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

how can you make that claim?
what members?
frustrated at some level?

please tell us how barr would know what members specifically and what level of frustration?


any claim of a lie in "No, I don't" is utter garbage, unless you have some kind of superpower of telepathy



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut




Ohh, an Aussie & Wiggles reference.

Are you not such?



Did you know I was road crew for a while with them, back when they were called "The Cockroaches"

I did not.
That is interesting.



But truly, I was born amazing and have been defending the Earth ever since. True story.

I do not doubt that.



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

So he is a lying about the phone call because he is lying about other things as evidence by the fact he is lying about the phone call.

Circular reasoning is calling you. Thank you for admitting that you must prove he lied about the phone call before your other argument holds water. Good thing Mueller has not once said Barr is misrepresenting their phone call.




top topics



 
47
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join