Mueller Investigation pt 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
phiwum said:
How would spinning put him in jeopardy? Suppose that he really didn't think that "spying" is an accurate term for what happened in Trump's campaign, but he chose to use it anyway. There is no possibility I can see, absent a memo saying "There was no spying," that he could be charged with lying under oath.
Click to expand...

Barr might be a Trump toady and an complete arse-hole, but he ain't stupid.

Putting the word "think" in there was quite obviously a deliberate choice in order to make himself immune from being accused of lying under oath.
 
Last edited:
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I think Hillary was obligated to tell the truth when placed under oath at congressional hearings. What bothered me about Hillary is that she wasn't placed under oath during questioning by the FBI, doesn't that seem odd or improper to you?
Chris B.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. No-one is ever actually placed under oath when giving a statement to, or being questioned by the FBI. However, it is still a crime to lie to the FBI during questioning, so for all intents and purposes, she might as well have been.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Nope.

You said... and I quote

"Barr is on the record as saying 'spying did occur'"

You are claiming that he made that statement as a statement of fact. HE DID NO SUCH THING. What he actually said was " I think spying did occur"... that is a statment of OPINION, not fact.

I can understand how you might not see the difference between opinion and fact, given your stance on the existence of bigfoot... but that is a another story isn't it... one that speaks to your credibility.
Click to expand...

It would seem the Office of Inspector General also "thinks" something out of the ordinary occurred hence the prior/ongoing IG activity. "I think" was used numerous times during Barr's testimony to prevent him having to provide evidence on the spot. This is a legal tactic of how to testify before Congress. Regardless, there is an investigation ongoing by the IG and Barr announced he has started looking into all of the evidence from the multiple investigations.

The Bigfoot threads are in another section of the site. You're welcome to voice your opinions on Bigfoot and my credibility as it relates there. But before you do keep in mind I won't try to convince you one way or another.

Chris B.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Trump's been right before. I feel it highly unlikely Barr would attempt to "spin" something while under oath at a Congressional hearing. "Spinning" there would likely put himself in jeopardy, why would he do that? I don't think so.

Chris B.
Click to expand...


Why should he think that? Trump shills, apologists, and darlings of the GOP have done so much spinning under oath that their bearings should have seized up, and few of them have ever faced any significant repercussions.

Frequently they are praised by their comrades in sycophancy.
 
phiwum said:
ChrisBFRPKY said:
If someone robbed my house the only difficulty would be deciding whether to shoot them with one of my AR-15's or one of my AK-47's. The culprit would be easy to locate, however my wife would probably disapprove of the red stains on the new carbonized bamboo flooring.

Chris B.
Click to expand...

Golly. You could have answered the question, but I think you made the right choice. Talk instead about what a manly man you are and add something about your decorating style. I can't speak for others, but I'm mighty impressed.
Click to expand...


Internet Tough Guy™ is always an effective counter-argument.

:rolleyes:
 
smartcooky said:
Yeah, like I'm going to believe anything I read on an extreme conservative right wing website like heritage.org

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/heritage-foundation/
Click to expand...

It's stupid to disbelieve something just because the wrong person says it. A little bit of digging would reveal that the source of the claim that McCabe lied is the DOJ Inspector General. You can find the linked report here:
https://static01.nyt.com/files/2018/us/politics/20180413a-doj-oig-mccabe-report.pdf

From page 27 of the report:
"We concluded that McCabe lacked candor during an INSD interview under oath on May 9, 2017, when he falsely told the agents that he had not authorized the disclosure to the WSJ and did not know who did."

ChrisBFRPKY got this one right.
 
Ziggurat said:
It's stupid to disbelieve something just because the wrong person says it. A little bit of digging would reveal that the source of the claim that McCabe lied is the DOJ Inspector General. You can find the linked report here:
https://static01.nyt.com/files/2018/us/politics/20180413a-doj-oig-mccabe-report.pdf

From page 27 of the report:
"We concluded that McCabe lacked candor during an INSD interview under oath on May 9, 2017, when he falsely told the agents that he had not authorized the disclosure to the WSJ and did not know who did."

ChrisBFRPKY got this one right.
Click to expand...

I don't have any problem with the fact that McCabe lied, its been a known for a year, although ChrisBFRPKY's reasons for bringing it up are more a case of whataboutism than the presentation of counter facts.

What I dislike about extreme sites and newspapers is the disingenuous nature of the commentary and opinion that come with it, which is why I stick to sources that present the facts and, for the most part, let the reader/viewer/listener determine what they mean. This means that I simply dismiss out of hand, sites and newspapers such as Breitbart, Heritage, Faux News, The Daily Caller, Daily Wire, Infowars and the New York post on the right, and Daily Kos, Palmer Report, Alternet and the Bipartisan Report on the left. Any information on sites like these, if it is the truth, can be obtained with a much fairer and more equitable presentation elsewhere . Anyone posts a link to sites like these, I don't follow it.

MSNBC, Mother Jones and Huffington Post is as far left as I will look, and Washington Times, American Conservative and Washington Examiner are as far right. Outside of those limits are not news sources to me, they are far right and far left mouthpieces.

PS: the only exception is Faux News, but I don't watch them for news, I watch for the entertainment value, to see how are they going to shoot themselves in the foot this week.
 
Last edited:
Right before Barr said, "I think that spying occurred," he said:

"The generation I grew up in, which is the Vietnam War period, people were all concerned about spying on anti-war people and so forth by the government, and there were a lot of rules put in place to make sure that there's an adequate basis before our law enforcement agencies get involved in political surveillance. I'm not suggesting that those rules were violated but I think it's important to look at that. And I'm not talking about the FBI necessarily, but intelligence agencies more broadly."

"I think spying did occur" is actually a pretty safe statement. Spying on Russians occurred; I don't know if that's even in dispute. Right before that, he takes pains to say he's not accusing U.S. agencies of breaking the rules. How do you square that statement with "I think spying did occur?" Easy. The passive voice was used for a reason. It might have been British intelligence.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
It also looks like the IG is and has been investigating these accusations of spying on a political campaign for quite some time. This is a big deal. The IG is not investigating Barr's thoughts or feelings.

Chris B.
Click to expand...

That he's investigating does not show that spying occurred. Don't you recall many people saying prior to the report that there was no collusion despite the investigation? Why, you just might have said that yourself, I don't know.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I do have some time to waste. I don't have so much of it that I want to delve too deeply into unrelated hypotheticals.

Chris B.
Click to expand...

Hey, no need to explain. It was totally awesome to hear all about your kickass guns and fine flooring. It was a real contribution.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I think Hillary was obligated to tell the truth when placed under oath at congressional hearings. What bothered me about Hillary is that she wasn't placed under oath during questioning by the FBI, doesn't that seem odd or improper to you?

Chris B.
Click to expand...

The FBI questioning is not the point of this thread. And you didn't answer my question.

You said that you presume Barr told the truth because he was under oath. Do you uniformly apply that presumption? I know you say she was obligated to do so, but do you presume she did so?
 
I'm wondering what these Republicans think the intelligence agencies were supposed to do when their surveillance operations started finding contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

Were they supposed to stop investigating just because it became political?
 
Spying occurred. We know that much. It's who was spied on and why they were spied on that matters. Trump's paranoid delusions, and attempts to make himself the victim, is why the facts are being distorted.
 
Last edited:
phiwum said:
The FBI questioning is not the point of this thread. And you didn't answer my question.

You said that you presume Barr told the truth because he was under oath. Do you uniformly apply that presumption? I know you say she was obligated to do so, but do you presume she did so?
Click to expand...

Barr's letter wasn't "under oath". Remind when Barr's "I think" statement was made?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom