The Mueller Report

[oxmixmudd]

Bill is not personally attacking you, Jim. He is observing that you appear to be full of hate for Trump and anyone who supports him in anything. That is what makes him sad.

Saying someone IS hateful is a personal attack.

And challenging ideas does not even remotely imply hate. If all one need do to be perceived as showing hatred is disagree with another person's point of view, then we are all in real trouble.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Normally when you are asking about members of someone's team, you are not including the leader. If they were talking about members of Trump's cabinet, they would not be including Trump for example. The question was clearly about people on Mueller's team other than Mueller. Trying to shoehorn Mueller into "members of Mueller's team" seems to be the exact technicality and playing semantic games you were complaining about.

Trying to get out of answering truthfully based on the assumption Mueller could NOT a member of his own team is the technicality.

As an example - if I lead a research team at work, I am ALWAYS listed as a member of said team. And most teams where I work have active supervisors, that is, they are working on the task along with the team members. So whether or not Mueller would be considered a member of 'Mueller's team' could depend on whether or not he actively participated in the task assigned to 'Mueller's team'. In this case, it is fairly obvious he was an active participant.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

One of the things I've done with my kids, to the best of my ability, is make it clear that if they do something wrong and then tell me the truth about it, they will always get in less trouble than if they lie about it. My 6-year-old has done really well with this, and will now tell me the truth about misbehavior without hesitation. I'm proud of her.

I followed that maxim as well. But sometimes I wonder if our society as a whole supports that idea. It works if we believe in Christ, because we ultimately answer to Him, who always rewards truth coupled with true repentance. But in watching some of the #metoo stuff, telling the truth does not get rewarded over lying at all. The concept of forgiveness, the possibility of repentance, reform or real change, seems to be almost completely lost in our world today. Who one is doesn't matter if at any time who one was deserved condemnation.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

I was assuming you misstyped, and meant to say "they were expected to answer truthfully. playing the technicalities game would get them punished worse than telling a lie."

ok yeah, actually in this they BOTH work - because the order of consequences was

truth < lie < tricky lie



Jim

[Mountain Man]

BTC, please read the entire context of my reply and the previous post. Barr was asked by congress:

"Did any members of the Mueller's team tell you about reservations they had about your summary?"

There is nothing specific about what kind of reservations. They just want to know it he was aware of the fact Mueller's team didn't like how he summarized the report.

He answered no, which is true ONLY in a very technical way IF he absolutely believed the email he had received from Mueller reflected Mueller's views and Mueller's views alone, AND if he could find some convincing reason to justify saying Mueller was NOT part of 'Mueller's team'.

But here we have Barr himself implying he thought the email wasn't in Muellers 'style' as it were, and he inferred it's content cam from Mueller's staff.

Which means Barr DID know at least some members of Mueller's team had reservations about his summary.

And, in fact, since Mueller is in fact a member of 'Mueller's team', It was a lie regardless.


Jim

that's the nature of legal discourse where you have to be far more precise than you would be in ordinary conversation. (This is reason that it is strongly recommended that you NEVER submit to police questioning without a lawyer present, because a layman can very easily talk himself into trouble.)

[Cow Poke]

that's the nature of legal discourse where you have to be far more precise than you would be in ordinary conversation. (This is reason that it is strongly recommended that you NEVER submit to police questioning without a lawyer present, because a layman can very easily talk himself into trouble.)

I like the way Barr answers questions directly, like when he was challenged about his use of the word "spying", from his statement "I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal," Barr said in a congressional hearing, deliberately or not, playing into claims that Trump's campaign was unfairly targeted by the FBI. "I think spying did occur."

Washington (CNN)
Attorney General William Barr on Wednesday defended his use of the word "spying" to describe surveillance of President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, telling lawmakers his use of the word during a hearing last month was done "off the cuff" and that he wasn't using it pejoratively.

"I'm not going to abjure the use of the word 'spying.' I think, you know, my first job was in CIA. And I don't think the word 'spying' has any pejorative connotation at all," Barr said, responding to a question from Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse during a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

He continued: "'Spying,' I think 'spying' is a good English word that in fact doesn't have synonyms because it is the broadest word incorporating really all forms of covert intelligence collection."

Later, when somebody made a statement about "spying" is not a word that is often used in the intelligence community, Barr responded "it's not a word *I* frequently use".

[oxmixmudd]

That was all playing on unrealistically technical interpretations of their words. He had a letter from Mueller that expressed reservations about his summary. So yes, he was aware of reservations about his summary from Mueller and/or his team.

Presumably Mueller speaks for his team, so when Mueller says there's no problem, that's the end of it. Yes, Barr's answer is very precise and technically accurate, but this is wholly expected because that's the nature of legal discourse where you have to be far more precise than you would be in ordinary conversation. (This is reason that it is strongly recommended that you NEVER submit to police questioning without a lawyer present, because a layman can very easily talk himself into trouble.)

Mueller did not say there was no problem to Barr himself, regardless of what public quote you may find that can perhaps be interpreted in that light. The congress was asking about private conversations that expressed reservations. Mueller sent a private letter to Barr expressing his concern over how Barr summarized the report. That letter and its content is now public knowledge. It is a fact that the public face and the private face in politics can be different. You can't obfuscate the fact there were in fact private reservations expressed to Barr about his summary by pointing to a publicly made comment that appears to say the opposite. The Congressional question was asking about the private side of the conversation.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

One of the things I've done with my kids, to the best of my ability, is make it clear that if they do something wrong and then tell me the truth about it, they will always get in less trouble than if they lie about it. My 6-year-old has done really well with this, and will now tell me the truth about misbehavior without hesitation. I'm proud of her.

I tell me kids that lying will never get you out of trouble, it will only ever get you in more trouble, and in some cases, it can get you in trouble when you were never in trouble in the first place!

But, again, we're talking about kids and not a legal proceeding where very precise responses that address only what was explicitly asked are par for the course. And, yes, there is a meaningful difference between saying "Mueller's team" and "Mueller and his team".

[Cow Poke]

I tell me kids that lying will never get you out of trouble...

My Momma would say "You don't have a good enough memory to lie, and I will find you out --- and I know where you sleep!!!"

[oxmixmudd]

My Momma would say "You don't have a good enough memory to lie, and I will find you out --- and I know where you sleep!!!"

I tell me kids that lying will never get you out of trouble, it will only ever get you in more trouble, and in some cases, it can get you in trouble when you were never in trouble in the first place!

But, again, we're talking about kids and not a legal proceeding where very precise responses that address only what was explicitly asked are par for the course. And, yes, there is a meaningful difference between saying "Mueller's team" and "Mueller and his team".

Sounds to me like both of you know better then than to claim Barr did not lie about having had reservations with his summary expressed by Mueller and/or his team.


Jim

[mossrose]

Not really talking about you MM. I was explaining a different post that was misunderstood where I was talking about you.

Putting me on ignore would be great! Then I don't have to watch you distort almost everything I say when you reply to me! Please DO!


Jim

Why don't you put MM on ignore instead. Then you won't see any replies he makes to you and we can all live together in peace. It's really unfair to suggest that you get to continue to respond to his posts but he can't respond to yours.

Better yet, both of you ignore the other.

[Cow Poke]

Sounds to me like both of you know better then than to claim Barr did not lie about having had reservations with his summary expressed by Mueller and/or his team.


Jim

Bless your heart, Jim. And feel free to put me on ignore, too.

[Mountain Man]

That was all playing on unrealistically technical interpretations of their words. He had a letter from Mueller that expressed reservations about his summary. So yes, he was aware of reservations about his summary from Mueller and/or his team.



Mueller do not say there was no problem. He sent a letter to Barr expressing his concern over how Barr summarized the report. That letter and its content is now public knowledge.


Jim

Except Barr spoke to Mueller personally and not to any members of Mueller's team, and Mueller emphasized that Barr's letter was neither inaccurate nor misleading and that Mueller's concerns were primarily with how the media was covering story.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.3a18fc0fdcb1

[Mountain Man]

Bless your heart, Jim. And feel free to put me on ignore, too.

How about he puts all of us on ignore, and then he can post whatever he wants without fear of seeing it challenged!

[Bill the Cat]

Why the personal attack BTC - am I personally attacking you when I don't agree with you?

Making an observation. The vitriol coming from you toward anyone who doesn't share your level of hatred for the President is worrisome.

As for you being sad, I don't know why that would make you sad.

Because you are a fellow believer, and when I see a fellow believer consumed by hatred the way you are portraying yourself, I get sad.

If Barr knew about issues Mueller and/or his team had with his summary - which he did based on when Mueller's letter was sent - then he was lying when he said he didn't.

Again, the issue was not with the summary, but with what it didn't bother to include - the hatred of some of Mueller's team for Trump. The context of the line of questioning was the FINDINGS of the summary and the report, not the tone behind it.

However, he was also being deceitful, in that he knew the congress didn't know about the mueller letter, or mueller as a source of that information, so he was playing on the technicality that they didn't ask specifically if Mueller had told him anything.

No he wasn't. The NYT had leaked the existence of the letter the night before Barr's testimony and it was ALL OVER the talk show circuit. There is no practical way in hell that Congress didn't know about the letter. In fact, they HAD to know in order to have asked him about it.

I don't know about you, but I did not tolerate that sort of thing from my own children. If I was even reasonably close to the truth with my question, they were expected to answer truthfully. playing the technicalities game would get them punished worse than telling the truth.