The Mueller Report

[Bill the Cat]

So Robert Mueller was not a member of his own team?

Is Mike Krzyzewski a member of the Duke Blue Devils team? No. He's the team's coach. In context, the question was not including Mueller.

Barr's response was deliberately misleading and deceptive.

No it wasn't. Your crappy interpretation of it is.

In short, he lied.

No he didn't, media tourist.

He knew full well that the Mueller team was unhappy with his 4 page Summery.

Summ"A"ry. And they were not unhappy with his summary. They were unhappy that he didn't include their personal opinions of the President's personal behavior. None disputed his summary of the facts of the report.

Mueller wrote the first of his two letters about it the day after its release to express his concern.

To express his concern that the MEDIA was screwing the pooch and misrepresenting the report.

And yet Barr omitted this relevant fact.

Because it was irrelevant to the accuracy of the summary.

[Bill the Cat]

This quote of Barr's indicates he should have answered yes to the full text of the question:

Source: barr

"You know, the letter's a bit snitty, and I think it was probably written by one of his staff people," Barr said.

© Copyright Original Source

Jim

No it isn't. You are intentionally leaving out key pieces of information, like WHAT the anonymous members were supposedly upset about. None said anything about the facts of the report or summary. They were mad that the summary didn't include personal swipes at the president. That's not relevant to an actual "reservation" about the conclusions drawn by Barr's summary.

[Mountain Man]

Keep that in mind when your kid answers a question like that. You can be comforted in knowing he learned from the best (liars) the US has to offer.

[Sparko]

yep.

(1) (discounting sarcasm) being unable to reflect back the other person's argument without distortion makes objectivity impossible.

(2) Am I not allowed my own sarcasm in my reply to a sarcastic comment?


Jim

It seemed to me you weren't being sarcastic Jim.

PS - MM putting you on ignore woudln't stop you from seeing his posts. To do that you have to put him on ignore. You both might want to consider it.

[oxmixmudd]

You're a hateful man, Jim. You make me sad...

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

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

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.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

It seemed to me you weren't being sarcastic Jim.

I typically answer in kind.

PS - MM putting you on ignore woudln't stop you from seeing his posts. To do that you have to put him on ignore. You both might want to consider it.

I understand that, but you are not quite understanding the implications of that.

To be a little clearer, if a person can't see my posts, then they typically won't respond to them*. So the reason I would not see a person's distortions of my words is that they would not see my posts and therefore would not respond to them. I could still respond to their points if I felt addressing them would benefit a larger audience.


Jim

*exceptions would be seeing my post quoted in another persons post, or turning ignore off periodically and 'peeking'.

[One Bad Pig]

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

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.

[Catholicity]

.

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.


Jim

He's not wrong....

[Sparko]

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.

You punished them for telling the truth?

[oxmixmudd]

No it isn't. You are intentionally leaving out key pieces of information, like WHAT the anonymous members were supposedly upset about. None said anything about the facts of the report or summary. They were mad that the summary didn't include personal swipes at the president. That's not relevant to an actual "reservation" about the conclusions drawn by Barr's summary.

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

[oxmixmudd]

You punished them for telling the truth?

Although I recognize the humor and the tease, I would add:


Generally one lies to cover up the truth because the truth reveals one has done something worthy of punishment ... so clearly I was not punishing them for 'tellng the truth', but rather for the act that was revealed by telling the truth. But the point being, telling the truth was the better option over telling some form of lie and later being discovered - and telling a 'tricky' lie that was 'almost true' was worst of all.




Jim

[Sparko]

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

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.

[Sparko]

Although I recognize the humor and the tease, I would add:


Generally one lies to cover up the truth because the truth reveals one has done something worthy of punishment ... so clearly I was not punishing them for 'tellng the truth', but rather for the act that was revealed by telling the truth. But the point being, telling the truth was the better option over telling some form of lie and later being discovered - and telling a 'tricky' lie that was 'almost true' was worst of all.




Jim

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."

[Zymologist]

You punished them for telling the truth?

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.

[Sparko]

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.

But there is no truth!