Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-01-2019, 05:34 PM
 
14,489 posts, read 6,105,346 times
Reputation: 6842

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey View Post
Lies like this would be more effective if the source document disproving it wasn’t readily available for the public to see for themselves. You must think your fellow posters are the dumbest people on Earth if you think they are going to buy this nonsense just because you repeat it over and over again.
That’s directly from the Washington Post article. Take it up with them
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-01-2019, 05:35 PM
 
14,489 posts, read 6,105,346 times
Reputation: 6842
Sums it up


https://mobile.twitter.com/paulsperr...17411344199681
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2019, 05:35 PM
 
46,307 posts, read 27,131,867 times
Reputation: 11135
Quote:
Originally Posted by GotHereQuickAsICould View Post
The answers seem so clear to me.

Wonder why the head of the U.S. Dept. of Justice has trouble with such questions.

He did not have trouble, he was trying to figure out the broad question that was given to him...does not matter what the the person said who you quoted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2019, 05:36 PM
 
46,307 posts, read 27,131,867 times
Reputation: 11135
Quote:
Originally Posted by dashrendar4454 View Post

Pretty much....Great post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2019, 05:36 PM
 
19,387 posts, read 6,512,524 times
Reputation: 12310
Did anyone hear me? I said he's not going to testify tomorrow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2019, 05:37 PM
 
9,254 posts, read 3,591,520 times
Reputation: 4852
Quote:
Originally Posted by dashrendar4454 View Post
That’s directly from the Washington Post article. Take it up with them
The letter from Mueller to Barr has been made available to the public and you are lying about its contents. I’ll take it up with you, the promoter of the lie, thank you very much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2019, 05:42 PM
 
Location: Vancouver
18,504 posts, read 15,571,038 times
Reputation: 11937
Quote:
Originally Posted by dashrendar4454 View Post
That’s directly from the Washington Post article. Take it up with them
Why rely on a newspaper when you can read the letter yourself?

"March 27, 2019

The Honorable William P. Barr
Attorney General of the United States
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C.

Re: Report of the Special Counsel on the Investigation Into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election and Obstruction of Justice (March 2019)

Dear Attorney General Barr:

I previously sent you a letter dated March 25, 2019, that enclosed the introduction and executive summary for each volume of the Special Counsel's report marked with redactions to remove any information that potentially could be protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e); that concerned declination decisions; or that related to a charged case. We also had marked an additional two sentences for review and have now confirmed that these sentences can be released publicly.

Accordingly, the enclosed documents are in a form that can be released to the public consistent with legal requirements and Department policies. I am requesting that you provide these materials to Congress and authorize their public release at this time.

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 summary 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 is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This 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. See Department of Justice, Press Release (May 17, 2017).

While we understand that the Department is reviewing the full report to determine what is appropriate for public release — a process that our Office is working with you to complete — that process need not delay release of the enclosed materials. Release at this time would alleviate the misunderstandings that have arisen and would answer congressional and public questions about the nature and outcome of our investigation. It would also accord with the standard for public release of notifications to Congress cited in your letter. See 28 C.F.R. § 609(c) ("the Attorney General may determine that public release" of congressional notifications "would be in the public interest").

Sincerely yours,

Robert S. Mueller, III
Special Counsel
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2019, 05:44 PM
 
46,307 posts, read 27,131,867 times
Reputation: 11135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel976 View Post
He's not going to testify tomorrow. It's highly inappropriate for the Dems to sic their lapdogs (staffers) on him.


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...ittee-n1000951

^^^Post 331





Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel976 View Post
Did anyone hear me? I said he's not going to testify tomorrow.
Post 337^^^^


4 minutes from your original post? What's your point?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2019, 05:46 PM
 
19,387 posts, read 6,512,524 times
Reputation: 12310
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post
4 minutes from your original post? What's your point?
Nobody responded. Time's a wasting.


I'm glad Barr is taking a stand on this. There is no way he should allow himself to be the punching bag of a bunch of snotty lawyers in their 20s.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2019, 05:47 PM
 
14,489 posts, read 6,105,346 times
Reputation: 6842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci View Post
Why rely on a newspaper when you can read the letter yourself?

"March 27, 2019

The Honorable William P. Barr
Attorney General of the United States
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C.

Re: Report of the Special Counsel on the Investigation Into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election and Obstruction of Justice (March 2019)

Dear Attorney General Barr:

I previously sent you a letter dated March 25, 2019, that enclosed the introduction and executive summary for each volume of the Special Counsel's report marked with redactions to remove any information that potentially could be protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e); that concerned declination decisions; or that related to a charged case. We also had marked an additional two sentences for review and have now confirmed that these sentences can be released publicly.

Accordingly, the enclosed documents are in a form that can be released to the public consistent with legal requirements and Department policies. I am requesting that you provide these materials to Congress and authorize their public release at this time.

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 summary 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 is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This 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. See Department of Justice, Press Release (May 17, 2017).

While we understand that the Department is reviewing the full report to determine what is appropriate for public release — a process that our Office is working with you to complete — that process need not delay release of the enclosed materials. Release at this time would alleviate the misunderstandings that have arisen and would answer congressional and public questions about the nature and outcome of our investigation. It would also accord with the standard for public release of notifications to Congress cited in your letter. See 28 C.F.R. § 609(c) ("the Attorney General may determine that public release" of congressional notifications "would be in the public interest").

Sincerely yours,

Robert S. Mueller, III
Special Counsel


And when Barr pressed Mueller in the phone. Mueller admitted the summary wasn’t inaccurate


Basically Mueller or someone in his team is throwing a hissy fit because the media coverage of Trump wasn’t negative enough after his report was finalized.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:26 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top