Wallace calls out FNC opinion hosts for ignoring facts regarding Barr

[SamSpade]

Either you are lying, you aren’t good at reading, or you are in complete denial.

What do you think the point of muellers letter was?

(shrug) What can I say? These two men have known each other personally for decades - Mueller was at both weddings of Barr's daughters.
Their wives are in the same Bible study. People around them have known them to disagree and poke at each other - one is pensive and intellectual (Mueller) the other is quick and aggressive; both are very smart men.

I thought this article useful, though there are plenty of others.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...r-barr-and-their-pre-trump-friendship/588151/

What we're seeing here, however, is a bunch of angry Democrats who after having placed their faith and hopes in the Mueller investigation have decided to shift gears and attack Barr. Mark my words, if Mueller doesn't measure up in two weeks, they'll be on him too.

My best friend and I disagree markedly over a lot of things at work - most recently, he wants enforced "team building" exercises, which I have told him is basically "the beatings will continue until morale improves" - and he agrees. FORCE people to 'like' each other. PUNISH them if they refuse. We disagree. He's still my very best friend.

The point of this is evidently it's "lying" when a personal friend of 30 years says he's not unhappy, but someone who doesn't know the man deduces from a single sentence that he is - I think it's fair to say the person calling out lies has a clearly biased reason for saying so.

 

[Midnightrider]

(shrug) What can I say? These two men have known each other personally for decades - Mueller was at both weddings of Barr's daughters.
Their wives are in the same Bible study. People around them have known them to disagree and poke at each other - one is pensive and intellectual (Mueller) the other is quick and aggressive; both are very smart men.

I thought this article useful, though there are plenty of others.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...r-barr-and-their-pre-trump-friendship/588151/

What we're seeing here, however, is a bunch of angry Democrats who after having placed their faith and hopes in the Mueller investigation have decided to shift gears and attack Barr. Mark my words, if Mueller doesn't measure up in two weeks, they'll be on him too.

My best friend and I disagree markedly over a lot of things at work - most recently, he wants enforced "team building" exercises, which I have told him is basically "the beatings will continue until morale improves" - and he agrees. FORCE people to 'like' each other. PUNISH them if they refuse. We disagree. He's still my very best friend.

The point of this is evidently it's "lying" when a personal friend of 30 years says he's not unhappy, but someone who doesn't know the man deduces from a single sentence that he is - I think it's fair to say the person calling out lies has a clearly biased reason for saying so.

That’s a lot of words that don’t answer the question. But even in your example YOU DISAGREE WITH YOUR FRIEND just like mueller’s letter says he disagrees with the way Barr handled his ‘summary’

So what was the point of the letter if it wasn’t to relate that mueller was not happy with the way Barr handled his summary?

 

[SamSpade]

So what was the point of the letter if it wasn’t to relate that mueller was not happy with the way Barr handled his summary?

Because of what I said earlier - disagree doesn't mean "not happy". That's a liberal's interpretation and reaction, and extremely common for someone who takes any disagreement as a personal slight. I disagree strongly with friends all the time, and then we keep drinking our beer. It's not personal.

Remember that Mueller also told him on the phone that nothing in the summary was inaccurate OR misleading. The difference is small, but evidently enough for the Dems to call out the Inquisition on Barr for "lying to Congress" when the facts are probably known only to Mueller and possibly Barr.

 

[Midnightrider]

Because of what I said earlier - disagree doesn't mean "not happy". That's a liberal's interpretation and reaction, and extremely common for someone who takes any disagreement as a personal slight. I disagree strongly with friends all the time, and then we keep drinking our beer. It's not personal.

Remember that Mueller also told him on the phone that nothing in the summary was inaccurate OR misleading. The difference is small, but evidently enough for the Dems to call out the Inquisition on Barr for "lying to Congress" when the facts are probably known only to Mueller and possibly Barr.

thats some fine hair splitting, but this isn't about them continuing to be friends, it is about the handling of the Barr summary. That is clearly stated in the letter. Mueller clearly disagrees with the way Barr handled his 'not a summary'.

The question from congress was not wether or not Mueller and Barr remained friends or if Barr thought Mueller was mad at him personally. The exchange was:

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?

BARR: No, I don’t. I think -- I think -- I suspect that they probably wanted more put out

so Barr not only knew, he had a letter from Mueller specifically stating the issues Crist was asking about.

Do you think barr honestly didn't know? Because if you can not answer that question in the afrimative, Barr was lying.

 

[SamSpade]

thats some fine hair splitting, but this isn't about them continuing to be friends, it is about the handling of the Barr summary. That is clearly stated in the letter. Mueller clearly disagrees with the way Barr handled his 'not a summary'.

The question from congress was not wether or not Mueller and Barr remained friends or if Barr thought Mueller was mad at him personally. The exchange was:



so Barr not only knew, he had a letter from Mueller specifically stating the issues Crist was asking about.

Do you think barr honestly didn't know? Because if you can not answer that question in the afrimative, Barr was lying.

Do you know what specific parts they wanted included? What I see is - they wanted more. What did they want? Who knows.
They wanted more. Maybe his "summary" - which to my knowledge he was under no compulsion to publish at all - should have
been the whole report. Barr gathered they wanted more - without specifics, he can only guess. Speculation isn't knowledge unless you're
a Democrat - then it becomes fact.

The Dems finding nothing to squawk about are grasping at straws in a last desperate attempt to nail SOMEBODY on SOMETHING.
Kamala asked a lot of idiot questions the other day, ones that as an attorney she had to know were pointless or irrelevant but made
great theater. Frankly, since Barr seems to be their whipping boy and they have no intention of fact-finding, I'm surprised he says anything.

 

[Midnightrider]

Do you know what specific parts they wanted included? What I see is - they wanted more. What did they want? Who knows.
They wanted more. Maybe his "summary" - which to my knowledge he was under no compulsion to publish at all - should have
been the whole report. Barr gathered they wanted more - without specifics, he can only guess. Speculation isn't knowledge unless you're
a Democrat - then it becomes fact.

The Dems finding nothing to squawk about are grasping at straws in a last desperate attempt to nail SOMEBODY on SOMETHING.
Kamala asked a lot of idiot questions the other day, ones that as an attorney she had to know were pointless or irrelevant but made
great theater. Frankly, since Barr seems to be their whipping boy and they have no intention of fact-finding, I'm surprised he says anything.

i thought you said you read the letter 9 times......
how could you miss the first two paragraphs? the specific itmes are right there and the rationale for releasing them directly as opposed to an incomplete 'not a summary' is included in the third.


so do you hoenstly think that Barr did not know what Crist was refering to?

 

[PsyOps]

I fail to see what the big deal is here. Mueller expressed concerns that Barr didn't release Mueller's executive summary, rather... Barr decided to release his own "summary", if you will. Mueller can ask Barr to do anything Mueller wants, but he cannot demand it. Mueller worked for the AG and answers to him. If Barr doesn't want to release Muller's executive summary, he is not obligated to do so. If Mueller wants to challenge Barr's summary as inaccurate to Mueller's summary, then he can take that up with congress when he testifies.

The bottom line is, and has been beaten to death... Mueller could find no collusion or conspiracy. That case is dismissed and there is no misunderstanding or inaccuracy about it. As to obstruction... I've stated it before: if Mueller found concrete evidence of obstruction, he would have said so. He would have obligated to. He punted. Were you people expecting Barr to find something that Mueller didn't to justify obstruction charges?

And yes... for those obvious suckers who like asking the same beat up question... I read the letter; several times. It's clear Mueller is concerned about Barr's summary. My take... so what! Mueller has a right to voice his concerns. Barr has no obligation, at all, to change anything he's done.

 

[Midnightrider]

I fail to see what the big deal is here. Mueller expressed concerns that Barr didn't release Mueller's executive summary, rather... Barr decided to release his own "summary", if you will. Mueller can ask Barr to do anything Mueller wants, but he cannot demand it. Mueller worked for the AG and answers to him. If Barr doesn't want to release Muller's executive summary, he is not obligated to do so. If Mueller wants to challenge Barr's summary as inaccurate to Mueller's summary, then he can take that up with congress when he testifies.

The bottom line is, and has been beaten to death... Mueller could find no collusion or conspiracy. That case is dismissed and there is no misunderstanding or inaccuracy about it. As to obstruction... I've stated it before: if Mueller found concrete evidence of obstruction, he would have said so. He would have obligated to. He punted. Were you people expecting Barr to find something that Mueller didn't to justify obstruction charges?

And yes... for those obvious suckers who like asking the same beat up question... I read the letter; several times. It's clear Mueller is concerned about Barr's summary. My take... so what! Mueller has a right to voice his concerns. Barr has no obligation, at all, to change anything he's done.

and if you would read the report you would see that Mueller clearly addressed why he was BOUND BY DOJ directive to not discuss his opinion on if Trump should be indicted or had broken the law.
Are you going to accept Muellers word when he testifies?


But that isn't the point here. The point is that Barr obviously knew about Mueller's letter when he answered that question from Crist in that hearing. That is lying to congress. all the other stuff is obfuscation.

 

[This_person]

so do you hoenstly think that Barr did not know what Crist was refering to?

Crist said what he was referring to: unnamed sources in news articles.

Barr said what he was responding to: a question about unnamed sources from news articles.

Where's your confusion?


(P.S. I know you won't answer me because I won't be nice to you like Sam is, I will continue to ridicule you for your intentional lying and inability to face reality)

 

[This_person]

and if you would read the report you would see that Mueller clearly addressed why he was BOUND BY DOJ directive to not discuss his opinion on if Trump should be indicted or had broken the law.
Are you going to accept Muellers word when he testifies?

Are you saying that the president could not be indicted post-presidency?

Because if you are, you would be either lying or wrong

 

[PsyOps]

and if you would read the report you would see that Mueller clearly addressed why he was BOUND BY DOJ directive to not discuss his opinion on if Trump should be indicted or had broken the law.
Are you going to accept Muellers word when he testifies?


But that isn't the point here. The point is that Barr obviously knew about Mueller's letter when he answered that question from Crist in that hearing. That is lying to congress. all the other stuff is obfuscation.

You really need to get off your high horse in thinking you're the only one who has read the report, and understands it.

This is what you do... you misdirect by talking about something off-topic, then go on to say "but that isn't the point here". If it isn't the point here, then don't make it one.

If Barr lied under oath, let's see congress take that up. Oh, with what? Contempt of Congress? We learned from Holder that that has absolutely no real meaning at all. Let's see what democrats do with Barr that they refused to do with Holder. Let's even see if they bother to formally accuse Barr of laying. It's all a bunch political posturing and stunts for democrats. Not one of them have substance that actually pertains to the job they were elected to do. They have one agenda... take down Trump. No matter the truth or lies, take down Trump. And you're a fool for playing along in the stupid pointless game.

 

[This_person]

Mueller clearly addressed why he was BOUND BY DOJ directive to not discuss his opinion on if Trump should be indicted or had broken the law.

Really makes me wonder why there was even a Special Counsel set up if there was no way, legally (by DoJ directive) that they could not come to a conclusion about the main person involved.

Doesn't that seem odd to you? As in, are you really stupid enough to believe what you are saying....that there was no way to comment on whether or not the candidate could have been indicted or prosecuted for any illegal action associated with the concept of "collusion", in any way?

I don't believe you are that stupid, just that blind.

Of course they could have commented - they could have recommended prosecution post-presidency. If it involved his family, they could indict his family. If it involved his campaign staff, they could have indicted his campaign staff. Same with obstruction.

Surely you're not this stupid (no answer required).

 

[Midnightrider]

You really need to get off your high horse in thinking you're the only one who has read the report, and understands it.

This is what you do... you misdirect by talking about something off-topic, then go on to say "but that isn't the point here". If it isn't the point here, then don't make it one.

If Barr lied under oath, let's see congress take that up. Oh, with what? Contempt of Congress? We learned from Holder that that has absolutely no real meaning at all. Let's see what democrats do with Barr that they refused to do with Holder. Let's even see if they bother to formally accuse Barr of laying. It's all a bunch political posturing and stunts for democrats. Not one of them have substance that actually pertains to the job they were elected to do. They have one agenda... take down Trump. No matter the truth or lies, take down Trump. And you're a fool for playing along in the stupid pointless game.

Ill get off my high horse of being the only one who read the report if you stop saying that Mueller could have or was obligated to say that Trump shold be indicted. That was CLEARLY dealt with in Mueller's report. If you had read it you would understand that much. I was responding to your misdirectiong and getting the thread back on topic.

And back on topic, it is clear that Barr lied when he said he didn't know that Mueller was frustrated with his handling of the report. Congress absolutely should hold him in contempt and probably impeach him if he refuses to testify considering he already gave false testimony in an open hearing. Thats what i would expect for any of our elected or appointed officals, D or R.


do you thnk all AG's should be allowed to lie to congress or just ones with an R after their names?

 

[Gilligan]

Surely you're not this stupid (no answer required).

 

[This_person]

Ill get off my high horse of being the only one who read the report if you stop saying that Mueller could have or was obligated to say that Trump shold be indicted. That was CLEARLY dealt with in Mueller's report.

Not true. Not close to true, unless you have problems with reading comprehension.

Could he recommend indictment post-presidency?

And back on topic, it is clear that Barr lied when he said he didn't know that Mueller was frustrated with his handling of the report.

He never said that. He was asked about unnamed Mueller staffers reporting to the media that they were frustrated, not Mueller. He answered that question, and included Mueller's frustration in his answer.

do you thnk all AG's should be allowed to lie to congress or just ones with an R after their names?

Given that Psy said "If Barr lied under oath, let's see congress take that up." it seems highly unlikely he thinks ANY AG should be allowed to lie to Congress, so you are (again) mischaracterizing what people say, just like you did with Barr and Mueller.




Isn't it sad you can't be honest? I can tell you, it's great that you are too afraid to respond to me - it proves each and every one of my responses is accurate. Of course, even if you responded to me, each and every one of my responses to you would still be accurate; you'd just find a way to lie about ME, too.

 

[PsyOps]

Ill get off my high horse of being the only one who read the report if you stop saying that Mueller could have or was obligated to say that Trump shold be indicted. That was CLEARLY dealt with in Mueller's report. If you had read it you would understand that much. I was responding to your misdirectiong and getting the thread back on topic.

You're still not getting it. If there was actual concrete evidence that Trump obstructed justice, you believe Mueller wouldn't have said so in his report? Can't you see he did this on purpose? You do understand how the law works right? You're presumed innocent until proven otherwise. There is not one sentence in the Mueller report that shows any conclusion that Trump was guilty of obstruction. Therefore, he is presumed innocent. PERIOD! Barr ended it by dismissing the issue due to lack of evidence.

 

[PsyOps]

And back on topic, it is clear that Barr lied when he said he didn't know that Mueller was frustrated with his handling of the report. Congress absolutely should hold him in contempt and probably impeach him if he refuses to testify considering he already gave false testimony in an open hearing. Thats what i would expect for any of our elected or appointed officals, D or R.


do you thnk all AG's should be allowed to lie to congress or just ones with an R after their names?

That's not a lie. That's refusing to guess Mueller's state of mind. You do know they had a subsequent phone conversation where Barr testified that Mueller expressed his concern about how the media is handling the reporting of the report? That seems to have clarified Mueller's position on that letter. Mueller apparently didn't express frustration with Barr; he expressed frustration with the press.

And what would holding him in contempt do? What punishment is there for contempt of congress? We learned from Holder - NOTHING! It's a usless tool. Impeach him for not knowing Mueller's state of mind? Have at it.

 

[Midnightrider]

You're still not getting it. If there was actual concrete evidence that Trump obstructed justice, you believe Mueller wouldn't have said so in his report? Can't you see he did this on purpose? You do understand how the law works right? You're presumed innocent until proven otherwise. There is not one sentence in the Mueller report that shows any conclusion that Trump was guilty of obstruction. Therefore, he is presumed innocent. PERIOD! Barr ended it by dismissing the issue due to lack of evidence.

He explained exactly why he didn’t say he thought trump should be indicted in his report. Read it.

He also clearly described the evidence that shows trump did obstruct justice. The only th8ng Barr did was try to spin the report so the sheep wouldn’t bother to read it.

That's not a lie. That's refusing to guess Mueller's state of mind. You do know they had a subsequent phone conversation where Barr testified that Mueller expressed his concern about how the media is handling the reporting of the report? That seems to have clarified Mueller's position on that letter. Mueller apparently didn't express frustration with Barr; he expressed frustration with the press.

And what would holding him in contempt do? What punishment is there for contempt of congress? We learned from Holder - NOTHING! It's a usless tool. Impeach him for not knowing Mueller's state of mind? Have at it.

Crist’s question wasn’t about muellers state of mind. It was about reports that Mueller wasn’t happy with the way the release was handled.

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 24 letter, that it does not adequately or accurately, necessarily, portray the report’s findings. Do you know what they’re referencing with that?"

Barr: "No, I don’t. I think, I suspect that they probably wanted more put out.

The letter proves Barr knew EXACTLY what Crist was asking about. And you want me to believe the guy who told that lie when he says mueller didn’t mean what he wrote?

 

[PsyOps]

He explained exactly why he didn’t say he thought trump should be indicted in his report. Read it.

He also clearly described the evidence that shows trump did obstruct justice. The only th8ng Barr did was try to spin the report so the sheep wouldn’t bother to read it.

The thing you cannot escape is that Mueller could emphatically conclude there was obstruction. If there was clear evidence of obstruction, Mueller would be required to say so. Like I said, he punted, and you have a problem getting past that.

If Trump did obstruct, Mueller would have detailed actual obstruction. The only thing Mueller outlined was Trump's attempts to stop the investigation, or narrow the scope of it. While Trump tried to do this, it never happened. The investigation continued (no obstruction) and the scope was never affected (no obstruction). No matter what you extract from the report, no obstruction ever happened. So, as I have tried to get through to you, you're left with attempt or conspiracy to obstruct. There you get to intent. Was it Trump's intent to obstruct? Is that even a crime? It appears not. But, your democrat buddies in congress are going to push for impeachment anyway, regardless of whether there was a crime or not. You people don't care about the presumption of innocence. You only care about taking down this man you hate.

 

[Midnightrider]

The thing you cannot escape is that Mueller could emphatically conclude there was obstruction. If there was clear evidence of obstruction, Mueller would be required to say so. Like I said, he punted, and you have a problem getting past that.

If Trump did obstruct, Mueller would have detailed actual obstruction. The only thing Mueller outlined was Trump's attempts to stop the investigation, or narrow the scope of it. While Trump tried to do this, it never happened. The investigation continued (no obstruction) and the scope was never affected (no obstruction). No matter what you extract from the report, no obstruction ever happened. So, as I have tried to get through to you, you're left with attempt or conspiracy to obstruct. There you get to intent. Was it Trump's intent to obstruct? Is that even a crime? It appears not. But, your democrat buddies in congress are going to push for impeachment anyway, regardless of whether there was a crime or not. You people don't care about the presumption of innocence. You only care about taking down this man you hate.

No, the thing that I can not escape is that you obviously haven’t read the report. Mueller clearly detailed that no matter how strong the evidence he could not announce a conclusion that implicated the president should be indicted.

And now you are back to intent and a misunderstanding of the obstruction laws. Trying to affect the outcome of an investigation is obstruction, even if there is no underlying crime. Go ask Martha Stewart.