The Putin - Trump Controversy: Here to Stay - Links between Trump and Russia are being officially investigated by the FBI

[B. W.]

I'm baffled by this mentality. The least you could do is to stay away from the thread and hope that people forget that you've been embarrassingly proven wrong. Yet, here you are, doing your best to deny and deflect from the indisputable truth. This is exactly how Republican lawmakers, commentators, and supporters approach anything. Barr outright lied about what Mueller's report reported. We have primary sources showing that as such. I have explicitly quoted the relevant sections from Barr's press conference before the report's release, the report itself, and Barr's testimony on the report. They fundamentally contradict each other. Barr lied. Mueller even wrote a letter expressing dissatisfaction about Barr's spin but it's not necessary to bring that in. So, what's really keeping you from acknowledging such a fact? Why deny it when have irrefutable evidence of Barr lying? What does it accomplish?

I agree with your conclusion that you are baffled.

This is from an article that you clearly have not read:

But earlier this month, The Washington Post first reported that Special Counsel Robert Mueller contacted Barr, both in a letter and in a phone call, to express concerns after Barr released his four-page summary of Mueller’s findings in March. Mueller pushed Barr to release the executive summaries written by the special counsel’s office. However, according to both the Post and the Justice Department, Mueller made clear that he did not feel that Barr’s summary was inaccurate. Instead, Mueller told Barr that media coverage of the letter had “misinterpreted” the results of the probe concerning obstruction of justice.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...OdB?li=BBnb7Kz

[NorseThing]

That's been proven to be a lie through primary sources. You keep this charade up by completely ignoring it. Why are you lying about this persistently?

I grant you these are primary sources. This is a good start. The problem is not that they are primary, but these do not add up to a lie (knowable misstatement of facts)

The press conference is from April 18th and is a public statement of Barr's 4 'summary' of the report. There can be debate of whether it is complete enough, but that is the case with any summary. It summarizes what the author believes to be the important points.

Barr's testimony from April 1 is before the release of the summary but after the report was received by the AG. I will take a snip out of your link:

BARR: I -- I don't -- Special Counsel Mueller has put out his report, and I have not have yet had anyone go through the full scope of his investigation to determine whether he did address or look at all -- into those issues.

So if there is any inconsistency with the summary, perhaps it is due to
one, the summary is not the full report,
two, the testimony is before a full reading of the support documents not included in the actual released report.

In other words, there can be inconsistencies. Inconsistencies are not lies. Lies are not necessarily the same as no true.

Fake news is not simply untrue it can also be true but not news. Note the noun as well as the modifier.

[Coughdrop addict]

Graham encourages Donald Trump Jr. to plead the 5th

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Monday that President Trump's son Donald Trump Jr. should comply with a Senate Intelligence Committee subpoena but refuse to answer the panel's questions.
“You just show up and plead the Fifth and it’s over with,” Graham told reporters, referring to the amendment that protects citizens from self-incrimination, according to The Washington Post.
He added that Trump Jr.'s lawyer would “have to be an idiot” to allow him to testify before the committee again.
Graham had said a day earlier on Fox News that Trump Jr. should simply ignore the summons.
The comments from the senator came less than a week after the GOP-led Senate Intelligence Committee subpoenaed Trump Jr. to testify about his communication with Russian officials.

So the head of a Senate committee is telling a witness how to respond, with the express purpose to obstruct the investigation into alleged wrongdoing. But only because Trump Jr. is completely innocent of any wrongdoing right?

[PointOfViewGun]

I agree with your conclusion that you are baffled.
This is from an article that you clearly have not read:
But earlier this month, The Washington Post first reported that Special Counsel Robert Mueller contacted Barr, both in a letter and in a phone call, to express concerns after Barr released his four-page summary of Mueller’s findings in March. Mueller pushed Barr to release the executive summaries written by the special counsel’s office. However, according to both the Post and the Justice Department, Mueller made clear that he did not feel that Barr’s summary was inaccurate. Instead, Mueller told Barr that media coverage of the letter had “misinterpreted” the results of the probe concerning obstruction of justice.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...OdB?li=BBnb7Kz

Does me clearly not reading that article somehow similar to you refusing to read primary sources that I provided earlier? Because the two are quite different as you will see now...

Here is the thing; you don't need Mueller to hold your hand to see that Barr lied. What Mueller thinks at this point is irrelevant. We have Barr's press conference and his testimony, as well as Mueller report. You are trying to shift focus to Barr's summary and Mueller's letter about that summary specifically. Neither explains why Barr didn't lie in his press conference and testimony about Mueller's report.

I do not know what letter MSN is referring to. I love how such mainstream media sources suddenly become trustful quality sources when its convenient. We have Mueller's letter:

As we stated in our meeting of March 5 and reiterated to the Department early in the afternoon of March 24, the introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report accurately summarize this Office's work and conclusions. The summery letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There now a public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. That threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.

Mueller does find Barr's summary to be not fully capturing the context, nature and substance of Mueller's report, hence, not accurate. What Mueller states to be accurate is the executive summary of his report. Unfortunately, MSN does not link to its sources, hence, I do not know which articles to check their wording on. Nonetheless, clearly, they are wrong.

It's really incredible though. The more you try to dismiss your refusal to admit that Barr lied, the wider your hole gets.

I grant you these are primary sources. This is a good start. The problem is not that they are primary, but these do not add up to a lie (knowable misstatement of facts)
The press conference is from April 18th and is a public statement of Barr's 4 'summary' of the report. There can be debate of whether it is complete enough, but that is the case with any summary. It summarizes what the author believes to be the important points.
Barr's testimony from April 1 is before the release of the summary but after the report was received by the AG. I will take a snip out of your link:
So if there is any inconsistency with the summary, perhaps it is due to
one, the summary is not the full report,
two, the testimony is before a full reading of the support documents not included in the actual released report.
In other words, there can be inconsistencies. Inconsistencies are not lies. Lies are not necessarily the same as no true.
Fake news is not simply untrue it can also be true but not news. Note the noun as well as the modifier.

Barr's testimony is aired on May 1st, not April 1st. What he testified there should have been unrelated to Mueller's report. A random person from the public was not to be sit down there. Barr, attorney general, testified. His knowledge of events was not supposed to be dependent on Mueller's report. This is true for Barr's press conference as well. If his summary and statements were to be solely dependent on the executive summary of the report then since that executive summary did not contain much of his statements Barr still lied. In any case, this is from the executive summary:

President Trump reacted negatively to the Special Counsel's appointment. He told advisors that it was the end of his presidency, sought to have Attorney General Jefferson (Jeff) Sessions unrecuse from the Russia investigation and to have the Special Counsel removed, and engaged in efforts to curtail the Special Counsel's investigation and prevent the disclosure of evidence to it, including through public and private contacts with potential witnesses. Those and related actions are described and analyzed in Volume II of the report.

With the knowledge of that, ignoring the fact that he was not a random citizen, Barr claimed that Trump fully cooperated with the investigation. That was false.

We have multiple dates here.
Mueller finished his investigation and reports to Barr on March 22.
Barr writes a letter to the Congress summarizing Mueller's report.
Barr holds press conference on April 18 and releases redacted Mueller's report.
Barr testifies in Congress on May 1.

Barr lied. The idea that Barr misspoke due to information he didn't have at the time does not hold ground.

[B. W.]

Does me clearly not reading that article somehow similar to you refusing to read primary sources that I provided earlier? Because the two are quite different as you will see now...

Here is the thing; you don't need Mueller to hold your hand to see that Barr lied. What Mueller thinks at this point is irrelevant. We have Barr's press conference and his testimony, as well as Mueller report. You are trying to shift focus to Barr's summary and Mueller's letter about that summary specifically. Neither explains why Barr didn't lie in his press conference and testimony about Mueller's report.

I do not know what letter MSN is referring to. I love how such mainstream media sources suddenly become trustful quality sources when its convenient. We have Mueller's letter:


Mueller does find Barr's summary to be not fully capturing the context, nature and substance of Mueller's report, hence, not accurate. What Mueller states to be accurate is the executive summary of his report. Unfortunately, MSN does not link to its sources, hence, I do not know which articles to check their wording on. Nonetheless, clearly, they are wrong.

It's really incredible though. The more you try to dismiss your refusal to admit that Barr lied, the wider your hole gets.




Barr's testimony is aired on May 1st, not April 1st. What he testified there should have been unrelated to Mueller's report. A random person from the public was not to be sit down there. Barr, attorney general, testified. His knowledge of events was not supposed to be dependent on Mueller's report. This is true for Barr's press conference as well. If his summary and statements were to be solely dependent on the executive summary of the report then since that executive summary did not contain much of his statements Barr still lied. In any case, this is from the executive summary:


With the knowledge of that, ignoring the fact that he was not a random citizen, Barr claimed that Trump fully cooperated with the investigation. That was false.

We have multiple dates here.
Mueller finished his investigation and reports to Barr on March 22.
Barr writes a letter to the Congress summarizing Mueller's report.
Barr holds press conference on April 18 and releases redacted Mueller's report.
Barr testifies in Congress on May 1.

Barr lied. The idea that Barr misspoke due to information he didn't have at the time does not hold ground.

I am confident that you are going to be in a state of shock with new developments that are going to be taking place with the new investigations that are just getting underway...not to mention the OIG report that will be coming out in a few weeks.

[PointOfViewGun]

I am confident that you are going to be in a state of shock with new developments that are going to be taking place with the new investigations that are just getting underway...not to mention the OIG report that will be coming out in a few weeks.

I really wonder how you justified typing that. It's certainly mind boggling.

[Coughdrop addict]

Trump Jr. agrees to meet with Senate Intelligence Committee after being subpoenaed

WASHINGTON – Donald Trump Jr. has agreed to come testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee after the panel subpoenaed him last week.

According to a source familiar with proceedings, Trump Jr. agreed to come in mid-June to meet with the committee with limited circumstances.

The source said the interview will be between two and four hours long and will be limited to no more than six topics.

No more than six topics? A smart man could still get him to implicate himself for the same reason that Trump's lawyers would never under any circumstances allow him to sit down with an investigator:

Trump Jr. "I'm not saying anything!"

Investigator (Says something along the lines of "I know. You're to dumb and unimportant for Russia to want to collude with you.")

Trump Jr. (Throws a fit) "Oh yeah?!"

Five minutes later Trump Jr. has admitted just how deeply in bed with Putin the family is.

[B. W.]

Well, well. It looks like the guy Barr appointed to investigate illegal behavior in the DOJ under Obama has already been doing his own investigation for months now. No wonder the dems are so frantic to try and label Barr with one of their markers for disqualification. Yep, they are panicking.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...o_justice.html

[PointOfViewGun]

Well, well. It looks like the guy Barr appointed to investigate illegal behavior in the DOJ under Obama has already been doing his own investigation for months now. No wonder the dems are so frantic to try and label Barr with one of their markers for disqualification. Yep, they are panicking.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...o_justice.html

What action of Democrats suggest that they're panicking? Is it panicking like how some people do their best to spin the fact that Barr lied?

[Common Soldier]

Can some one list the specifics in Mueller's report that justifies all this talk of impeachment? I know what Mueller's summary said, but that reflecs his opinion, not necessarily the facts.

1. What specific actions justified Mueer's claim for obstruction of Justice? Did he make the same claim about the FBI? (Losing ll the emails and the backups as well could be termed as obstructionist. While it was claimed the emails were all recovered, how can we ever be certain that some of the most damaging emails were not, and that the recogered emails were carefully edited? The same "the records are lost and the backups as well" kind of thing happened with the IRS under the Obama administration.)

2. What were the specific incidents that Barr lied in? That politicians lied is no news, Bill Clinton lied under oath, but most Americans did not believe that was grounds for impeachment.)

I see a lot of talk, but no specifics to justify the claims being made on either side.

[Katsumoto]

I see a lot of talk, but no specifics to justify the claims being made on either side.

I don't know where you're looking, but I would perhaps try Mueller's report. The specific attempts to obstruct justice are listed in quite some detail there. Please don't expect people to spoon-feed you. I'm also going to pretend you didn't mention Hillary's emails.

[B. W.]

Barr doesn't seem particularly worried about Democratic party threats:

https://freebeacon.com/politics/barr...our-handcuffs/

[PointOfViewGun]

Can some one list the specifics in Mueller's report that justifies all this talk of impeachment? I know what Mueller's summary said, but that reflecs his opinion, not necessarily the facts.
1. What specific actions justified Mueer's claim for obstruction of Justice? Did he make the same claim about the FBI? (Losing ll the emails and the backups as well could be termed as obstructionist. While it was claimed the emails were all recovered, how can we ever be certain that some of the most damaging emails were not, and that the recogered emails were carefully edited? The same "the records are lost and the backups as well" kind of thing happened with the IRS under the Obama administration.)
2. What were the specific incidents that Barr lied in? That politicians lied is no news, Bill Clinton lied under oath, but most Americans did not believe that was grounds for impeachment.)
I see a lot of talk, but no specifics to justify the claims being made on either side.

So, you didn't read this post? You also didn't read the post at the top of this page where it is directly linked to that post? You even tried to jump into that conversation only a few posts after primary sources were referenced. Clearly, you must have already seen such posts detailing how Trump obstructed justice and how Barr lied. Are you gonna try to ignore the evidence like B.W. have been doing past few pages to spin a case that's quite damning?

[Coughdrop addict]

Flynn provided details in Mueller's obstruction inquiry, new memo shows

Prosecutors have unsealed new details in the case involving former national security adviser Michael Flynn, revealing that he provided information to special counsel Robert Mueller relevant to his obstruction inquiry.
“The defendant informed the government of multiple instances, both before and after his guilty plea, where either he or his attorneys received communications from persons connected to the Administration or Congress that could have affected both his willingness to cooperate and the completeness of that cooperation,” the filing states.
“The defendant even provided a voicemail recording of one such communication. In some of those instances, the SCO was unaware of the outreach until being alerted to it by the defendant,” the document continues.
Flynn also provided information to prosecutors about discussions within President Trump’s campaign about WikiLeaks, the organization that released hacked Democratic emails tied to a Russian plot to interfere in the 2016 election, according to the new filing.
The new details appear in a less-redacted version of the government’s addendum to Flynn’s sentencing memo, which was filed last December. At the time, Mueller’s team recommended Flynn be given a lenient sentence as a result of his “substantial assistance” in the investigation.

So now we have a voicemail of someone connected to Trump engaging in witness tampering. Probably on Trump's orders.

The report states that, after Flynn withdrew from a joint defense agreement with Trump and began cooperating with the investigation, “the President's personal counsel left a message for Flynn's attorneys reminding them of the President's warm feelings towards Flynn, which he said ‘still remains,’ and asking for a ‘heads up’ if Flynn knew 'information that implicates the President.'"
“When Flynn's counsel reiterated that Flynn could no longer share information pursuant to a joint defense agreement, the President's personal counsel said he would make sure that the President knew that Flynn's actions reflected ‘hostility’ towards the President,” the report states.

So one of Trump's lawyers wanted a "head's up" from Flynn of any evidence he might have that implicated Trump. All but admitting there is evidence.

Next stop for Flynn. House Intel via subpoena.

[B. W.]

Big news at Red State:

https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-v...dioactive-ash/

[Basil II the B.S]

Trump has officially called out the secret services of the UK and Australia for their role in the ''Russia conspiracy''. Sanctions when?

[The spartan]

So that Mueller testimony was sure something, huh? At least he made it clear Trump is not "cleared", though I don't think his supporters care. I am still stuck on the position that this is only going to end in civil conflict. Trump can't help doing illegal things and his supporters love him too much to ever let that stop.

[Basil II the B.S]

Indeed I highly recommend that conservatives prepare for war in places like the US and France. I called out this thing as a coup from the beginning, now it turns out that there was collusion with foreign services in the elections, just not the ones liberals wanted to find. It's them who colluded with the UK to stop Trump. Their coup failed but they clearly have no intention to let go. They have decided Trump colluded, even if there's zero evidence and they are not going to listen to anything else. .

Combined with their hate agenda, this is beyond the realm of discussion in a democracy.

[The spartan]

Yes, thank you for demonstrating my point. I don't think you are particularly rare in your mentality.

[Basil II the B.S]

If it can make you feel any better, I'm one of the moderate ones.