400+ prosecutors sign a letter noting POTUS absent DOJ policy not to indict POTUS

[Bill the Cat]

According to Barr... is not sufficient evidence for any truth claims from political figures.

So, someone who makes a SPECIFIC claim, under oath and in public view, knowing that he would be committing perjury, still makes a positive claim, which would be easily refutable by the other party, and you won't give him the benefit of the doubt... why?

You don't have to either believe Barr or believe he is lying--you can choose to withhold judgment.

On what grounds? He testified, under oath, to something that could very easily be refuted.

Otherwise, the discussion is, as I said, pointlessness because people are just shouting their preconceived notions at each other.

There is no logical reason to doubt the AG in this question, unless you start out assuming he is lying.

[guacamole]

So, someone who makes a SPECIFIC claim, under oath and in public view, knowing that he would be committing perjury, still makes a positive claim, which would be easily refutable by the other party, and you won't give him the benefit of the doubt... why?

Because it sometimes occurs that people perjure themselves.

On what grounds? He testified, under oath, to something that could very easily be refuted.

On the grounds that Mueller's letter constitutes a conflict. A lot of this could be easily dealt with by people who weren't being cagey, bending the truth, or resisting politics.

There is no logical reason to doubt the AG in this question, unless you start out assuming he is lying.

No. You're imputing a circularity that I haven't argued.

[MaxVel]

>>Reads discussion so far...

Anyone can pretend the other fellow is being unreasonable. And you've not even offered a discussion. You in specific did not even enter the conversation - you just made an obscure scriptural reference that had no perceivable connection to the conversation at that point. Then you accused me of being at war with trump - in response to me calmly asking what your reference meant because it made no sense to me.

That is not just unreasonable, it is nearly unintelligible. As I said - the problem isn't me at this point.

Jim

I think you are proving my point.

But here is a test. If you are being rational and I am not, then it should be possible for at least one of you, using precise and rational language, to point out what i have said on this topic so far in this thread is irrational and why it is irrational.

So far there has only been accusation, drama, and various forms of name calling, which does not bode well for your accusations having any real merit.

Jim

>> Replies to topic of OP as asked...

>> Explains at least one place where Jim is being irrational, as asked...

Seriously?

Wow.

[Bill the Cat]

Because it sometimes occurs that people perjure themselves.

Do you doubt EVERY claim made?

On the grounds that Mueller's letter constitutes a conflict.

How so? Mueller's letter didn't dispute the actual facts of the summary or the conclusions drawn at all, just the tone of it.

A lot of this could be easily dealt with by people who weren't being cagey, bending the truth, or resisting politics.

Or more so by people who didn't start out with an a priori assumption that Barr was Trump's "wingman". Instead of treating the AG with respect, he was treated no better than a cheerleader for the opposing team.

No. You're imputing a circularity that I haven't argued.

By not making a decision yet, you are implicitly not trusting the AG's testimony.

[oxmixmudd]

Trump OCD lenses in your glasses make your "observations" suspect.

TrumpOCD is simply an excuse to avoid dealing with the legitimate problems a man like him naturally creats when such a man is given tge iffice of president.

In short, the provisions in our goverment desigbed to prevent one man from gaining to much power exist because men like Donald Trump exist in the world. Electing
Such a man to office on the assumption those provisions are steong enough to keep him in check may prove to gave been a very big mistake.

And matters not one hill of beans. Plenty of bandwagon jumpers, never Trumpers, and lefty lawyers with absolutely no skin in the game can say anything they want with no repercussions.

Dismissing this as meaningless is also a mistaje on your part. Assume for a moment this is legit. What would that mean? It would mean we are watching a president explicitly defy the law and successfully manipulate the governnent through tge abuse of his power in such a way tthat he is above the law.

And 4 out of 5 dentists surveyed choose trident gum. Big deal.



Comey is a despicable liar, and has his own scandal to deal with wrt the FISA crap.

Actually, Comey is honest and committed to the well being of this country to a fault. The fact you would say this about him says far more about you than it does him

Jim

[Mountain Man]

Mueller's letter constitutes a conflict.

No it doesn't. There is no conflict between Mueller's letter and the subsequent phone conversation he had with Barr.

But since you think there is a conflict, let's turn this around: on basis would you assume it's not Mueller who was lying?

[guacamole]

Do you doubt EVERY claim made?

No. Do you accept EVERY claim made?

How so? Mueller's letter didn't dispute the actual facts of the summary or the conclusions drawn at all, just the tone of it.

And yet, it seems to me that when he says: "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...", that he indicates that there conflict between Barr's statement and the report.

To look at it another way, if someone were to make a claim about a passage of scripture, and you were to respond that the the claim did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of the text, you'd be indicating a discrepancy between what the passage meant and their interpretation of the passage.

Or more so by people who didn't start out with an a priori assumption that Barr was Trump's "wingman". Instead of treating the AG with respect, he was treated no better than a cheerleader for the opposing team.

IMO, this is irrelevant. Some people might think he is a liar because he is Trump's wingman. I do not. It is possible for a close supporter and underling to truthfully support a boss without lying.

By not making a decision yet, you are implicitly not trusting the AG's testimony.

Sure. That doesn't mean that I automatically think he is lying. Neither does posting the text of Mueller's letter to anyone claiming that Mueller didn't contradict Barr, when the simplest and most straightforward interpretation of Mueller's letter is that there is a conflict.

[guacamole]

No it doesn't. There is no conflict between Mueller's letter and the subsequent phone conversation he had with Barr.

But since you think there is a conflict, let's turn this around: on basis would you assume it's not Mueller who was lying?

I'm not assuming he's not lying.

[oxmixmudd]

No it doesn't. There is no conflict between Mueller's letter and the subsequent phone conversation he had with Barr.

But since you think there is a conflict, let's turn this around: on basis would you assume it's not Mueller who was lying?

That is easy. Mueller has shown himself to put integrity and the constitution over self all his life. Barr has shown himsef to be willing to put the interests of the country and the constitution behind the interests of Trump.

Therefore the probabiliy barr is being less than honest is higher.

Jim

[tabibito]

And yet, it seems to me that when he says: "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...", that he indicates that there conflict between Barr's statement and the report.

To look at it another way, if someone were to make a claim about a passage of scripture, and you were to respond that the the claim did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of the text, you'd be indicating a discrepancy between what the passage meant and their interpretation of the passage.

I'm inclined to agree. Now - what reason do I have to assume that Barr's summary didn't make it look worse than Mueller wanted it to?

[Sparko]

If Barr is investigating the FBI, Clinton's campaign and various other democrats in conjunction with the Collusion charges, and the democrats in the house are trying to get him kicked out of office and hold him in contempt, isn't that obstruction of justice?

[Mountain Man]

That is easy. Mueller has shown himself to put integrity and the constitution over self all his life.

Fake news...

Source: DIRTY COP: Here Are the Major Scandals that Took Place When Robert Mueller Was FBI Director

Shortly after his appointment as Special Counsel to investigate Russia’s alleged interference into the 2016 presidential election, a former colleague characterized Robert Mueller as “ramrod straight” and “utterly incorruptible.” Similar language was breathlessly repeated in mainstream media outlets such as Politico, BBC, and Time magazine. Mueller’s Vietnam-era service in the United States Marine Corps and 2004 tag-team with then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey to (supposedly) save American democracy from warrantless spying are mainstays of these biographies, sending a clear message that his integrity is not to be questioned, that his dedication to evenhanded justice is beyond reproach.

It’s always suspicious when anyone’s credibility is pushed hard like this, but that goes double when the same person was FBI director for 12 years—spanning across both the Bush and Obama administrations from 2001 to 2013—yet most people can’t remember anything about him. We should remember things such as actions he took to impartially uphold the law.

Sadly, that is not the case. What stands out most during then-FBI Director Mueller’s term in office is the two-tiered system of justice, when obvious crimes and scandals involving government officials and private-sector elites were ignored or even covered up by the FBI. Much of the worst behavior of government officials in the Bush and Obama administrations was given a pass by Mueller’s FBI, as well as a megabank that laundered billions of dollars for Mexican drug cartels and sponsors of terror.

Simply put: Mueller helped to create the swamp that needs to be drained. He’s a dirty cop with no business being anywhere near any national security investigation, but especially one involving James Comey.

[What follows is a list of the major scandals that happened on Mueller's watch. -MM]

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...-fbi-director/

© Copyright Original Source

Oh, yeah, and the claims that Mueller's team didn't leak is demonstrably false:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/17558...and-john-nolte
https://nypost.com/2017/11/06/robert...-leak-problem/
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...r-ted-malloch/
https://theconservativetreehouse.com...-stone-arrest/

Just a few examples, but suffice to say, we know for a fact that Mueller and/or his team repeatedly leaked little (and sometimes not-so-little) tidbits to their media allies throughout the investigation. Notably the only time Mueller pushed back against an alleged leak was the Buzzfeed "bombshell" falsely claiming that Trump had ordered Cohen to lie to Congress. It reminds me of a trick that cops sometimes use when they're suspicious of someone. They'll say something like, "So if we searched your car, would we find any weapons or drugs or dead bodies?" and the guilty man will always latch onto the one thing he can confidently deny, thinking it will make him appear innocent of the rest: "Oh, no, sir, you won't find any dead bodies!" So why do you suppose Mueller went out of his way to deny the Buzzfeed leak but not all the other ones his team was accused of over the past two year?

[Bill the Cat]

No. Do you accept EVERY claim made?

Just ones that have sufficient evidence.

And yet, it seems to me that when he says: "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...", that he indicates that there conflict between Barr's statement and the report.

"did not fully capture" is not in any way saying there were falsehoods in it. Therefore, the conflicts are over stylistic content.

To look at it another way, if someone were to make a claim about a passage of scripture, and you were to respond that the the claim did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of the text, you'd be indicating a discrepancy between what the passage meant and their interpretation of the passage.

But not the actual text of it. Right?

IMO, this is irrelevant. Some people might think he is a liar because he is Trump's wingman. I do not. It is possible for a close supporter and underling to truthfully support a boss without lying.

True. I am referring to the way the relevant Democrats and press have treated Barr.

Sure. That doesn't mean that I automatically think he is lying. Neither does posting the text of Mueller's letter to anyone claiming that Mueller didn't contradict Barr, when the simplest and most straightforward interpretation of Mueller's letter is that there is a conflict.

Again, "conflict" is the wrong word to use. It's too broad and does not - itself - capture the nature of the disagreement.

[Bill the Cat]

That is easy. Mueller has shown himself to put integrity and the constitution over self all his life. Barr has shown himsef to be willing to put the interests of the country and the constitution behind the interests of Trump.

Therefore the probabiliy barr is being less than honest is higher.

Jim

Homer Simpson would be jealous of your homering...

[guacamole]

I'm inclined to agree. Now - what reason do I have to assume that Barr's summary didn't make it look worse than Mueller wanted it to?

That Barr's claim was positive for the president, rather than condemning.