FLVOL69
MAGA
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2010
- Messages
- 28,639
- Likes
- 50,529
I’ve read the letter. Dry. Hole. The narrative you’re pushing is going nowhere. No where in that letter was any reference made to disagreements on accuracy or Barr’s conclusions."drive by"? .... "hit job cherry picking"? It was a direct question and Barr played dumb. Why not mention the letter and be forthcoming? He knew Mueller had objections to his "summary of principal conclusions" letter and he knew why. He was being coy and evasive and not behaving like an independent authority should.
“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 said: “No, I don’t.”
“I suspect that they probably wanted more put out, but in my view, I was not interested in putting out summaries or trying to summarize,” he added.
"drive by"? .... "hit job cherry picking"? It was a direct question and Barr played dumb. Why not mention the letter and be forthcoming? He knew Mueller had objections to his "summary of principal conclusions" letter and he knew why. He was being coy and evasive and not behaving like an independent authority should.
"drive by"? .... "hit job cherry picking"? It was a direct question and Barr played dumb. Why not mention the letter and be forthcoming? He knew Mueller had objections to his "summary of principal conclusions" letter and he knew why. He was being coy and evasive and not behaving like an independent authority should.
I did have to look, but what I’m seeing he said was that Mueller told him that he was not saying he would charge Trump, if not for the OLC opinion. Meaning he, Mueller, may not have felt the proof was strong enough or may have had other reasons for not charging.Yea I’ve read that highlighted txt several times. And evidently your behind on two sworn testimonies by Barr that the OLC opinion had nothing to do with why Meuller failed to prosecute on obstruction. I guess when Meuller is brought in we shall see if somebody is lying. But Sparky is actually a fitting nickname based on what I do for a living.
Barr is far and away the most unbiased and best qualified person to hold the job since Mukasey. Now go ahead and screechDoes anyone honestly believe that Barr is an independent authority or is it more like he is an extension of the Trump legal defense team? (I'm not expecting many conservative replies to this.)
He has alleged that spying occurred on the Trump campaign in 2016 (this is a serious allegation that needs to be clarified). Most importantly, why didn't he personally review the underlying evidence described in the Mueller report? Isn't that what an AG does before deciding whether or not to prosecute? Had he arrived at a preconceived notion before reading the Mueller report? There are many things.In regards to what?
The report is there for you and I to read.
He has alleged that spying occurred on the Trump campaign in 2016 (this is a serious allegation that needs to be clarified). Most importantly, why didn't he personally review the underlying evidence described in the Mueller report? Isn't that what an AG does before deciding whether or not to prosecute? Had he arrived at a preconceived notion before reading the Mueller report? There are many things.
And he doubled down on that when quizzed on the word “spying”. That’s pretty damn telling.He has alleged that spying occurred on the Trump campaign in 2016 (this is a serious allegation that needs to be clarified). Most importantly, why didn't he personally review the underlying evidence described in the Mueller report? Isn't that what an AG does before deciding whether or not to prosecute? Had he arrived at a preconceived notion before reading the Mueller report? There are many things.