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: 21
47
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2019 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
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?


I'm not going to bother.

It is clear cut and simple and has been posted and re-posted.

The content and intent of Mueller's letter to Barr is clear. The letter is entirely about the insufficiency of Barr's summary letter to Congress (that was also released to the public).




posted on May, 3 2019 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
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.


No, you're the one interjecting a completely different conversation, with a different Congressman, that occurred on a different day.

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.”


I'm not talking about his conversation with Van Hollen on April 10th, where Barr tapped danced all around to avoid ansering any of Van Hollen's questions. www.vanhollen.senate.gov...

We found out that Barr lied on April 1st, on April 10th when Mueller's letter was released.




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



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
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




How is that a lie? He does not know what they are referencing regarding "does not adequately or accurately necessarily portray the reports findings." their is no detail in Mueller letter and apparently, Mueller did say that there was nothing he disagreed with Barrs 4 page letter. Barr answered honestly.



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
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?


I'm not going to bother.

Thank you for admitting you can not prove your claim.



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody




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


Barr would know because of the 2 letters Mueller sent to him stating the concerns of "this office". "This office" represents Mueller's team.

If Mueller had meant to be speaking for himself only he wouldn't have written "this office" and "We", he would have said "Me" and "I".



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

There is no lie there, and it does not discuss conclusions in that question.


“There was immediate displeasure from the team when they saw how the attorney general had characterized their work instead,”


That is the report that emerged. Barr had called Mueller and discussed his summary, in the phone call Mueller said he did not dispute any of the facts Barr put in his summary. So since Barr had called Mueller and was unable to get an answer about what those reports referenced he had no idea what those reports were referencing.

The only lies are by your ilk.



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha




“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?

Do you have a release by 'members of the special counsel's team' that shows what they were frustrated about?

I am not asking for a news report that alludes to this.... I'd like to see an actual quote from a named member of the team.



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

There's plenty of detail in the letter. Mueller cites exactly what he and his team felt was missing, the executive summaries, that included context, nature, substance and conclusions. Mueller wanted those summaries released, forthwith, to stem public confusion.

What could the public be confused about? Mueller's obstruction conclusions and Barr's contradictory conclusions.



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 09:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: shooterbrody




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


Barr would know because of the 2 letters Mueller sent to him stating the concerns of "this office". "This office" represents Mueller's team.

If Mueller had meant to be speaking for himself only he wouldn't have written "this office" and "We", he would have said "Me" and "I".




so you read muellers mind?
it is amazing how many members here have come out with superpowers recently
enlighten us how you obtained yours?



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: shooterbrody




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


Barr would know because of the 2 letters Mueller sent to him stating the concerns of "this office". "This office" represents Mueller's team.

If Mueller had meant to be speaking for himself only he wouldn't have written "this office" and "We", he would have said "Me" and "I".





Obviously, if it was so clear in the letter, Barr would not have needed to call Mueller and ask what the problem was. Mueller told him they thought Barr should have released his full 19 page summary to avoid confusion. Barr asked if there was anything he disagreed with in his 4 page letter? Mueller said no.

So point of fact, this is heresay from Barr but is not a proven lie. The team did not specify nor did Mueller, in their letter. Nor have they been questioned to find out what they meant and what was said on the call.

No one really knows what the team was thinking. So no one has lied except those who are trying to say they are mind readers and know Barr lied.



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha




to stem public confusion.

is that muellers job?
all along I was under the impression mueller was to give a report to the AG?
is that now not the case?
is mueller responsible for shaping public opinion?
are you angry that opinion does not align with yours?

more gnashing of teef from the losers
perhaps you should have researched the rules prior to the outcome
it may help you avoid disappointment next time
doj procedures actually prevent mueller from releasing investigation details
good thing barr is there to provide transparancy isnt it?



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Again, you're citing a mysterious phone call, that we have no record of, or transcript of, that Barr refuses to release, where Barr says that he and Mueller agreed on everything and everything is all good now, after the phone call. But Barr is a proven liar, and can't be trusted.

Mueller's letter is damning for Barr and proves Barr lied to Charlie Crist and Congress, on April 1.



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts




Barr would not have needed to call Mueller and ask what the problem was


Without a transcript of the call, we have no idea why Barr called Mueller. He may have called him to threaten him to shut up!

This alleged phone call is not evidence or testimony, its hearsay.




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



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
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.


... and the America bit has been trashed, too.

I mean, look...




posted on May, 3 2019 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: CynConcepts

There's plenty of detail in the letter. Mueller cites exactly what he and his team felt was missing, the executive summaries, that included context, nature, substance and conclusions. Mueller wanted those summaries released, forthwith, to stem public confusion.

What could the public be confused about? Mueller's obstruction conclusions and Barr's contradictory conclusions.







As Barr pointed out that the summaries he received needed to be redacted by the staff. They were already busily reacting the full report to release it completely ASAP to the public. Mueller didnt disagree about the contents of the 4 page letter because it was a actual condensed version of his summary.

Barr did not want to start piecemealing the report for it would only cause more confusion. Within 2 weeks, he released all 448 pages and those included all the summary pages too.

Why is this not seen as common sense!?



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: CynConcepts




Barr would not have needed to call Mueller and ask what the problem was


Without a transcript of the call, we have no idea why Barr called Mueller. He may have called him to threaten him to shut up!

This alleged phone call is not evidence or testimony, its hearsay.





Exactly, just as saying Barr lied when he said he didn't know to Christ question. It is heresay until Mueller and his team is asked? Seriously, how hard is it to just simply ask Mueller, the one who wrote the letter, what the heck did he mean? It is BS attacking Barr and a fallacy without having confirmed the truth from Mueller first.



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
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?


I'm not going to bother.

Thank you for admitting you can not prove your claim.


Thank you for admitting that you sniff children's Lego blocks.




posted on May, 3 2019 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Who hasn't?



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts




...just as saying Barr lied when he said he didn't know to Christ question. It is heresay until Mueller and his team is asked?


It's not hearsay. We have Bob Mueller's letter. The letter proves that Barr lied to Crist on April 1. We don't have a transcript of this "convenient" phone call. It's not evidence nor is it testimony from Bob Mueller. It's hearsay.


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



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts




As Barr pointed out that the summaries he received needed to be redacted by the staff.


That's all backpaddling. Barr could have said, on April 1, that he has received a letter from Bob Mueller, but that they were in disagreement as to the timing of the release of the executive summaries. But, he didn't, he lied instead.


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




top topics



 
47
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join