Page 2 of 44 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 659
  1. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Gopher View Post
    So, when Barr testified on 4/10 that he didn't know whether Mueller supported his conclusion, that was after Mueller's objections in his 3/27 letter. That used to be known as perjury and would get you into jail. Now it's a non story, which I guess I recognize, but there can't be any question why some of us would like to restore the rule of law around here.
    Your post would be a great discovery if it had any root in truth. But it has none. Read DH and CRG above. Mueller agrees that Barr's statements are correct. Mueller is concerned that media coverage is incorrect and will lead to wrong public conclusions about his report. You got duped again. What you fail to realize is that the media has two things to gain by a ruse like this: 1. money- people read it 2. This is cover for the media who has run fake news for two years


  2. #17

    Default

    Mueller did solidify his position as a leaking, political operative:

    “Mueller complained to Barr about memo on key findings.” That’s the banner headline at the top of the Washington Post’s website Wednesday. But when you click your way to the actual story, it turns out that the headline is not true. Special Counsel Mueller’s complaint, which targeted Attorney General Barr’s March 24 letter explaining the report, is not about the “key findings.” It’s about the narrative.

    Mueller’s complaint is that Barr “did not fully capture the context” of Mueller’s magnum opus – the “nature and substance” of the report.This complaint was set forth in Mueller’s own letter, dated March 27. The letter is a microcosm of Mueller’s collusion probe: sound and fury, signifying nothing; an investigative process predicated on no criminal conduct, which generated crimes rather than solving one.

    Parsed carefully (which you have to do with the special counsel’s Jesuitical work), Mueller is precisely not saying that Barr misrepresented his key findings. He is saying that 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. Mueller would have preferred for us to feel all the ooze of un-presidential escapades he couldn’t indict but wouldn’t, from his lofty perch, “exonerate.”

    The purportedly private letter to Barr, like Mueller’s purportedly confidential report, was patently meant for public consumption, and thus leaked to the Post late yesterday. The timing is transparently strategic: the leak drops a bomb as Barr was preparing for two days of what promises to be combative congressional hearings, starting this morning; it give maximum media exposure to Mueller’s diva routine and its Democratic chorus, while the attorney general gets minimal time to respond to asinine cries of that he should be charged with perjury, held in contempt, and – of course – impeached.


    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/andr...ashington-post
    Last edited by bga1; 05-01-2019 at 07:12 AM.

  3. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bga1 View Post
    Your post would be a great discovery if it had any root in truth. But it has none. Read DH and CRG above. Mueller agrees that Barr's statements are correct. Mueller is concerned that media coverage is incorrect and will lead to wrong public conclusions about his report. You got duped again. What you fail to realize is that the media has two things to gain by a ruse like this: 1. money- people read it 2. This is cover for the media who has run fake news for two years
    As previously stated, humble beggar, craig and charter school got their woodies over a justice department spokesperson's characterization of a phone call between Barr and Mueller. That has the same credibility as your accusation that Hillary had Seth Rich whacked.

  4. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by diehard View Post
    From MSN: "When Barr pressed Mueller on whether he thought Barr’s memo to Congress was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not but felt that the media coverage of it was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said."

    Well there ya go. You can't even figure out corporate taxes or find classes at the U. No one in their right mind would ever hire you for a serious job.
    Wrong, braindead. You are missing the picture. There was a letter PRIOR to the report release stating that the memo was a poor representation of the full report. Not that it was a lie.

    Take your meds and change your depends.

    Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

  5. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bga1 View Post
    Mueller did solidify his position as a leaking, political operative:

    “Mueller complained to Barr about memo on key findings.” That’s the banner headline at the top of the Washington Post’s website Wednesday. But when you click your way to the actual story, it turns out that the headline is not true. Special Counsel Mueller’s complaint, which targeted Attorney General Barr’s March 24 letter explaining the report, is not about the “key findings.” It’s about the narrative.

    Mueller’s complaint is that Barr “did not fully capture the context” of Mueller’s magnum opus – the “nature and substance” of the report.This complaint was set forth in Mueller’s own letter, dated March 27. The letter is a microcosm of Mueller’s collusion probe: sound and fury, signifying nothing; an investigative process predicated on no criminal conduct, which generated crimes rather than solving one.

    Parsed carefully (which you have to do with the special counsel’s Jesuitical work), Mueller is precisely not saying that Barr misrepresented his key findings. He is saying that 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. Mueller would have preferred for us to feel all the ooze of un-presidential escapades he couldn’t indict but wouldn’t, from his lofty perch, “exonerate.”

    The purportedly private letter to Barr, like Mueller’s purportedly confidential report, was patently meant for public consumption, and thus leaked to the Post late yesterday. The timing is transparently strategic: the leak drops a bomb as Barr was preparing for two days of what promises to be combative congressional hearings, starting this morning; it give maximum media exposure to Mueller’s diva routine and its Democratic chorus, while the attorney general gets minimal time to respond to asinine cries of that he should be charged with perjury, held in contempt, and – of course – impeached.


    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/andr...ashington-post
    HAHAHA! So fake news network added their spin to the story? WRONG!

    Mueller was upset that the memo was an extremely biased representation of the report. No lies told. But it was spin. Barr should have no problem producing the letter (AS REQUESTED) sent by Mueller in your case. And that should prove that Mueller either believed it was a poor representation of his report....or that the memo didn't "set the right mood". LOL.

    Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Shoreview
    Posts
    14,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bga1 View Post
    Your post would be a great discovery if it had any root in truth. But it has none. Read DH and CRG above. Mueller agrees that Barr's statements are correct. Mueller is concerned that media coverage is incorrect and will lead to wrong public conclusions about his report. You got duped again. What you fail to realize is that the media has two things to gain by a ruse like this: 1. money- people read it 2. This is cover for the media who has run fake news for two years
    Even if what you say is true, perjury is perjury.

  7. #22

    Default

    In testimony, Barr just said that their decision about obstruction examined each of the 10 episodes discussed in the report and determined that none of them would constitute obstruction as a matter of law based on the analytical framework set forth by the Special Counsel.

    Sorry howie, it wasn’t b/c the President can’t be indicted.

  8. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Gopher View Post
    Even if what you say is true, perjury is perjury.
    Perjury is perjury, I think we can all agree on that. Is there a point here?

  9. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KillerGopherFan View Post
    In testimony, Barr just said that their decision about obstruction examined each of the 10 episodes discussed in the report and determined that none of them would constitute obstruction as a matter of law based on the analytical framework set forth by the Special Counsel.

    Sorry howie, it wasn’t b/c the President can’t be indicted.
    The more the Dems fight this, the worse it is going to get for them.

  10. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bga1 View Post
    The more the Dems fight this, the worse it is going to get for them.
    Agree. The more we learn from Barr and Mueller, the more the post-Mueller report lefty theories blow up.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Shoreview
    Posts
    14,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bga1 View Post
    Perjury is perjury, I think we can all agree on that. Is there a point here?
    The point here is that it's not perjury in this case because of who did it. Just like Michelle Obama called an ape for wearing a sleeveless dress while the First Skank was a nude model, and that's OK.

  12. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KillerGopherFan View Post
    Agree. The more we learn from Barr and Mueller, the more the post-Mueller report lefty theories blow up.
    The problem they have is twofold: 1. They lost 2. It is going to get worse and they know it. The current attempt at theater is the hope of running the clock and getting the public to become increasingly confused and tired of hearing about this whole thing. After all they know that they were able to run the clock out on past Obama scandals. It won't work this time. Lynch or Holder are no long the AG....

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    34,433
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Gopher View Post
    So, when Barr testified on 4/10 that he didn't know whether Mueller supported his conclusion, that was after Mueller's objections in his 3/27 letter. That used to be known as perjury and would get you into jail. Now it's a non story, which I guess I recognize, but there can't be any question why some of us would like to restore the rule of law around here.
    Yet some say we shouldn't even discuss it and focus only on the election.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    34,433
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KillerGopherFan View Post
    In testimony, Barr just said that their decision about obstruction examined each of the 10 episodes discussed in the report and determined that none of them would constitute obstruction as a matter of law based on the analytical framework set forth by the Special Counsel.

    Sorry howie, it wasn’t b/c the President can’t be indicted.
    BS. Barr determined that because he believes a President can't commit obstruction.

    Mueller clearly felt bound by the DOJ policy that you can't indict the President and left it for Congress. In the report he clearly said so. He also said if they felt the President was cleared of obstruction they would say so, but they could not say that. Stop lying.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    34,433
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bga1 View Post
    Perjury is perjury, I think we can all agree on that. Is there a point here?
    Yes. When Barr told Congress he had "no idea" how Mueller felt about his summary on April 10th, he was lying and perjured himself.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •