| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22553 Posts
On May 01 2019 22:58 mikedebo wrote: He is going to get away with it because Trump won't fire him over this and Congress can't impeach him without the Republicans who will not defy Trump.If Barr manages to get out of this scott-free, will we say that there were no Barrs held in contempt of court? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22553 Posts
On May 01 2019 22:56 xDaunt wrote: So we agree Barr couldn't have made the conclusion he did.No, Mueller did not say that he was prohibited from doing so. He used the guidelines as a justification for not doing so. If the DOJ guidelines forbade it, Barr and Rosenstein couldn’t have made the conclusion that they did. Wonderful. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9064 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22553 Posts
On May 01 2019 23:18 Plansix wrote: "I did not recall" the 4 words that get you out of any trouble when in front of congress.They should just ask why Barr did not tell them about the letter he received from the special counsel after he wrote his letter to congress. And when he dodges, ask the exact same question again. There is no reason for him not to have told congress about that. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On May 01 2019 22:58 mikedebo wrote: If Barr manages to get out of this scott-free, will we say that there were no Barrs held in contempt of court? Since his opening statement said he didn’t reverse any redaction decisions, can we say that there were no holds Barred? I’m not at all surprised that Mueller was concerned about narrative in the few weeks before release. It’s consistent with the tone of the report made for public consumption. In the words of Andrew McCarthy, “he and the Clinton/Obama minions he recruited to staff the case wrote the report with a certain mood music in mind. To their chagrin, Barr gave us just the no-crime bottom line.” It’s pretty neat that the private letter, obviously written for the public, was leaked late in the day before Barr faces two days of tough questioning before Congress. Narrative wars, and Mueller’s as concerned as the media. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22553 Posts
On May 01 2019 23:22 Danglars wrote: Is it strange that he letter is leaked when last time Barr, in front of Congress, having already received the letter, said he didn't know what Mueller thought?Since his opening statement said he didn’t reverse any redaction decisions, can we say that there were no holds Barred? I’m not at all surprised that Mueller was concerned about narrative in the few weeks before release. It’s consistent with the tone of the report made for public consumption. In the words of Andrew McCarthy, “he and the Clinton/Obama minions he recruited to staff the case wrote the report with a certain mood music in mind. To their chagrin, Barr gave us just the no-crime bottom line.” It’s pretty neat that the private letter, obviously written for the public, was leaked late in the day before Barr faces two days of tough questioning before Congress. Narrative wars, and Mueller’s as concerned as the media. He damn well knew, Mueller told him. Twice. He lied and tried to hide the truth. So whistleblowers have to show the American public what is really going on. If he didn't lie last time and told Congress about the letter and phonecall there would have been nothing to leak. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On May 01 2019 23:22 Danglars wrote: Since his opening statement said he didn’t reverse any redaction decisions, can we say that there were no holds Barred? I’m not at all surprised that Mueller was concerned about narrative in the few weeks before release. It’s consistent with the tone of the report made for public consumption. In the words of Andrew McCarthy, “he and the Clinton/Obama minions he recruited to staff the case wrote the report with a certain mood music in mind. To their chagrin, Barr gave us just the no-crime bottom line.” It’s pretty neat that the private letter, obviously written for the public, was leaked late in the day before Barr faces two days of tough questioning before Congress. Narrative wars, and Mueller’s as concerned as the media. You don't see a problem at all that a leaked private letter esposes Barr as someone who lies to Congress? That should be far more important than your concern over a whistleblower. First, remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye. In this case though, there is no speck, there is nothing wrong with whistleblowing the lies to the American Public. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On May 01 2019 23:27 Gorsameth wrote: Is it strange that he letter is leaked when last time Barr, in front of Congress, having already received the letter, said he didn't know what Mueller thought? He damn well knew, Mueller told him. Twice. He lied and tried to hide the truth. So whistleblowers have to show the American public what is really going on. If he didn't lie last time and told Congress about the letter and phonecall there would have been nothing to leak. No, you’re confusing two questions, perhaps deliberately. The question before Barr in Congress was whether Mueller agreed with Barr’s conclusion on obstruction. The letter answered the question if Mueller agreed with releasing only the decision conclusions ahead of the full report, which Mueller did not agree. Now are you going to “hide the truth,” or admit Barr told no lies? I’m perfectly willing to recognize mistakes, just not persecution ignorant of the facts. | ||
|
mikedebo
Canada4341 Posts
On May 01 2019 23:22 Danglars wrote: Since his opening statement said he didn’t reverse any redaction decisions, can we say that there were no holds Barred? Thanks for playing along with my pun 😊 | ||
KwarK
United States44276 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On May 01 2019 23:49 Danglars wrote: No, you’re confusing two questions, perhaps deliberately. The question before Barr in Congress was whether Mueller agreed with Barr’s conclusion on obstruction. The letter answered the question if Mueller agreed with releasing only the decision conclusions ahead of the full report, which Mueller did not agree. Now are you going to “hide the truth,” or admit Barr told no lies? I’m perfectly willing to recognize mistakes, just not persecution ignorant of the facts. Are we talking about the same letter? "The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not full capture the context, natures and substance of this Office's work and conclusions" Sounds like to me that answer to "the question before Barr in Congress was whether Mueller agreed with Barr’s conclusion on obstruction" is No, Mueller does not. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22553 Posts
On May 01 2019 23:49 Danglars wrote: Barr isn't completely stupid enough to directly lie. Just lies of omission, like taking parts of sentences from Mueller's report out of context to change their meaning in a letter to congress.No, you’re confusing two questions, perhaps deliberately. The question before Barr in Congress was whether Mueller agreed with Barr’s conclusion on obstruction. The letter answered the question if Mueller agreed with releasing only the decision conclusions ahead of the full report, which Mueller did not agree. Now are you going to “hide the truth,” or admit Barr told no lies? I’m perfectly willing to recognize mistakes, just not persecution ignorant of the facts. If that is the bar(r) you set for an AG then power to you. I'd place it a little bit higher then that. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On May 02 2019 00:03 Gorsameth wrote: Barr isn't completely stupid enough to directly lie. Just lies of omission, like taking parts of sentences from Mueller's report out of context to change their meaning in a letter to congress. If that is the bar(r) you set for an AG then power to you. I'd place it a little bit higher then that. But you see, you told me "in front of Congress ... said he didn't know what Mueller thought" "Mueller told him. Twice" That's a lie, before you want to retreat into other forms, like lying by omission. Do you retract what you said was the lie? Do you admit the summary of conclusions and prosecutorial decision on obstruction of justice are different things? Tell me now so I know if this was a mistake or something different. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
On May 02 2019 00:03 Gorsameth wrote: Yup. When Barr lies or misleads it seems to be that he will state something that's provably false, but with no way proving him false because he prevents the information that would do so from being public. This has now happened twice in the last month and a half and was the exact same thing he did with his conclusion on the special prosecutor report into the Iran Contra. His stated conclusions for the report back then were out of line with the report's actual conclusions. It seems to be the same case now.Barr isn't completely stupid enough to directly lie. Just lies of omission, like taking parts of sentences from Mueller's report out of context to change their meaning in a letter to congress. If that is the bar(r) you set for an AG then power to you. I'd place it a little bit higher then that. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22553 Posts
On May 02 2019 00:10 Danglars wrote: No I don't retract. The man lied to congress.But you see, you told me "in front of Congress ... said he didn't know what Mueller thought" "Mueller told him. Twice" That's a lie, before you want to retreat into other forms, like lying by omission. Do you retract what you said was the lie? Do you admit the summary of conclusions and prosecutorial decision on obstruction of justice are different things? Tell me now so I know if this was a mistake or something different. According to Barr he even asked Mueller on the phone if Mueller thought Barr's letter was inaccurate. So yes, he had talked to Mueller about it and he should have told Congress but didn't. And as someone Dangermousecatdog said "The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not full capture the context, natures and substance of this Office's work and conclusions" there was apparently something wrong with Barr's summery of the conclusions. | ||
| ||
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
Monday Night Weeklies
Afreeca Starleague
Leta vs ggaemo
Jaedong vs Queen
GSL
PiGosaur Cup
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
Escore
IntoTheTV X SOOP
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
