Barr testimony

[PaulS]

Mueller's letter said Barr did not capture the "context, nature or substance" of the report. Mueller's letter in itself was unusual because in the justice department individuals don't normally write those type of letters.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Mueller's letter said Barr did not capture the "context, nature or substance" of the report. Mueller's letter in itself was unusual because in the justice department individuals don't normally write those type of letters.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't know what it means to "capture" context, nature, or substance. What ever it might mean, did he "capture" if the facts, the factual evidence, was sufficient to conclude either conspiracy or obstruction?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Don't know what it means to "capture" context, nature, or substance. What ever it might mean, did he "capture" if the facts, the factual evidence, was sufficient to conclude either conspiracy or obstruction?

If you thought I was stupid why would you ask me a question? Is this more of not being able to control your anger? Send me another one of those apologies and maybe I'll respond to you
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

If you thought I was stupid why would you ask me a question?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

because it's fun to see what kind of nonsense you will come up with

you sound really angry...

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

because it's fun to see what kind of nonsense you will come up with

you sound really angry...

Not at all I think he's funny. Now you sound snarky
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

If you thought I was stupid why would you ask me a question? Is this more of not being able to control your anger? Send me another one of those apologies and maybe I'll respond to you
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You were too stupid to realize that it was a rhetorical question.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Mueller's letter said Barr did not capture the "context, nature or substance" of the report. Mueller's letter in itself was unusual because in the justice department individuals don't normally write those type of letters.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Barr’s letter was released, as was the Mueller report. If there are glaring inconsistencies, we would
know about it. What is in the Barr letter, which is not supported by the Mueller report? thats the obvious first question. Did the Mueller
report recommend that the DOJ induct Trump? That would
be a serious inconsistency...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Did the Mueller
report recommend that the DOJ induct Trump?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yes, into the Hall of Fame for driving leftists insane

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Barr’s letter was released, as was the Mueller report. If there are glaring inconsistencies, we would
know about it. What is in the Barr letter, which is not supported by the Mueller report? thats the obvious first question. Did the Mueller
report recommend that the DOJ induct Trump? That would
be a serious inconsistency...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The issue is that after Barr released Barr's letter, Mueller sent him a letter saying you didn't capture the substance of my report. Then Barr testified to Congress that he did not think Mueller was upset with Barr's letter. So he had the letter from Mueller yet he claimed Mueller was not upset (my word) with his letter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The issue is that after Barr released Barr's letter, Mueller sent him a letter saying you didn't capture the substance of my report. Then Barr testified to Congress that he did not think Mueller was upset with Barr's letter. So he had the letter from Mueller yet he claimed Mueller was not upset (my word) with his letter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

curious...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The issue is that after Barr released Barr's letter, Mueller sent him a letter saying you didn't capture the substance of my report. Then Barr testified to Congress that he did not think Mueller was upset with Barr's letter. So he had the letter from Mueller yet he claimed Mueller was not upset (my word) with his letter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ok. but it’s also reported, that before barr testified, that Mueller called Barr and told Barr that his conclusions were not inaccurate. If Mueller told Barr that directly, did Barr lie?

We have his report, we have Barrs letter. on what points do they contradict?

Spence said Barrs letter inappropriately exonerates trump. fine. let’s see the text of Muellers report, which contradicts Barrs letter?

i don’t care if Muellers report used the word “may”, and Barr used the word “shall”.
i don’t care about nuance. was Barrs letter an accurate, reasonable summary of the Mueller report, or not?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence said Barrs letter ....

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence is always wrong....soooo