Sol Rosenberg

Drip Drip Drip

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Dog said:

The Mueller report is but one source in this saga. Maybe I will get around to it but it won't be for a while.

Dude - you really need to recognize when someone's trying to help ya out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does it (the Mueller Report) matter at this point?  Seriously?  We all know Trump is a asshole, but there was no collusion.  The DoJ has spoken - there will be no indictments from that quarter.  Nadler and Schiff can carry on but their subpoenas have no means of enforcement.  Polls show Americans want the Russia collusion story to be in the rearview mirror and they are looking forward to 2020.  Democrats ought to focus on that election and stop trying to win the one that happened 2-1/2 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mueller told the attorney general that the depiction of his findings failed to capture 'context'

Source: Washington Post

By Washington Post Staff 
April 30 at 7:07 PM 

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III expressed his concerns in a letter to William P. Barr after the attorney general publicized Mueller’s principal conclusions. The letter was followed by a phone call during which Mueller pressed Barr to release executive summaries of his report. 

This is a developing story. It will be updated. 


Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2019/04/30/mueller-told-the-attorney-general-that-the-depiction-of-his-findings-failed-to-capture-context-nature-and-substance-of-probe/?utm_term=.432b002d6c2d 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Mueller told the attorney general that the depiction of his findings failed to capture 'context'

Source: Washington Post

By Washington Post Staff 
April 30 at 7:07 PM 

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III expressed his concerns in a letter to William P. Barr after the attorney general publicized Mueller’s principal conclusions. The letter was followed by a phone call during which Mueller pressed Barr to release executive summaries of his report. 

This is a developing story. It will be updated. 


Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2019/04/30/mueller-told-the-attorney-general-that-the-depiction-of-his-findings-failed-to-capture-context-nature-and-substance-of-probe/?utm_term=.432b002d6c2d 
 

Mueller doesn’t seem to be a fan of the Doggy Style. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Dude - you really need to recognize when someone's trying to help ya out. 

I thought you might actually get somewhere with Dog. Thanks for trying.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Mueller doesn’t seem to be a fan of the Doggy Style. 

I'm going to go buy some popcorn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Dog said:

Is it addressed in the report?

A question you wouldn't have to ask over and over if you read the report. Do your own homework Dog, until then you're just ignorant noise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and in other news...

In a 48-page opinion Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Emmett Sullivan denied a motion from Trump to dismiss the case. Trump’s argument rested on a narrow definition of “emolument.” The judge found that argument unpersuasive.

“The President’s definition, however, disregards the ordinary meaning of the term as set forth in the vast majority of Founding-era dictionaries; is inconsistent with the text, structure, historical interpretation, adoption, and purpose of the Clause; and is contrary to Executive Branch practice over the course of many years,” Sullivan wrote.

Congressional Democrats sued Trump in June 2017, alleging that profits he received from his hotels that came from foreign government visitors constituted a violation of the emoluments clause, which prohibits presidents from receiving gifts or things of value from foreign governments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, another 505 sailor said:
6 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Dude - you really need to recognize when someone's trying to help ya out. 

I thought you might actually get somewhere with Dog. Thanks for trying.

Honestly, I didn't. Dog has chosen another small, unwanted hill to plant his flag on and he'll be damned if he gets moved from it. Same story as most of his stupidity, he thinks being stubborn trumps actually knowing what you're talking about. And as always, he looks like a complete tool for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

So the guy that is good at covering things up, that was hired to cover things up based on his letter thinking things should be covered up, actually covered things up?

Weird.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

I doubt anyone could in a few pages but then he released the report itself so the quality of his summary is moot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Given that and Barr’s performance the day of release odds are 100% that Mueller will testify before Congress. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, bhyde said:

and in other news...

In a 48-page opinion Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Emmett Sullivan denied a motion from Trump to dismiss the case. Trump’s argument rested on a narrow definition of “emolument.” The judge found that argument unpersuasive.

“The President’s definition, however, disregards the ordinary meaning of the term as set forth in the vast majority of Founding-era dictionaries; is inconsistent with the text, structure, historical interpretation, adoption, and purpose of the Clause; and is contrary to Executive Branch practice over the course of many years,” Sullivan wrote.

Congressional Democrats sued Trump in June 2017, alleging that profits he received from his hotels that came from foreign government visitors constituted a violation of the emoluments clause, which prohibits presidents from receiving gifts or things of value from foreign governments.

Well, do definitions matter after all?  Absurd.  That's not the dictionary we voted for!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

I doubt anyone could in a few pages but then he released the report itself so the quality of his summary is moot.

Nice try. It is not the quality of the summary at issue.

Mueller questions whether the summary accurately reflects his report’s context, nature or substance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Nice try. It is not the quality of the summary at issue.

Mueller questions whether the summary accurately reflects his report’s context, nature or substance. 

If Mueller's summary was in any way mischaracterized,  Barr needs to be charged with obstruction. I look forward to Mueller's testimony.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, badlatitude said:

If Mueller's summary was in any way mischaracterized,  Barr needs to be charged with obstruction. I look forward to Mueller's testimony.

Were I asking the questions, #1 would be “Did you end your investigation because you were finished or were you ordered or otherwise compelled to end it?”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Were I asking the questions, #1 would be “Did you end your investigation because you were finished or were you ordered or otherwise compelled to end it?”

It will be high drama for sure. Donnie will be sweating the whole time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:
35 minutes ago, Dog said:

I doubt anyone could in a few pages but then he released the report itself so the quality of his summary is moot.

Nice try. It is not the quality of the summary at issue.

Mueller questions whether the summary accurately reflects his report’s context, nature or substance. 

Dog lies about what the Mueller report says (among other things)

But then, you can read the report for yourself, so Dog is not really lying. Just like all those other things he lies about, one can find the truth pretty easily. So he's not REALLY lying at all, he's just hoping you're stupid enough to believe him.

Same thing as A.G. Barr lying about it.

It's really no big deal

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

Dog lies about what the Mueller report says (among other things)

But then, you can read the report for yourself, so Dog is not really lying. Just like all those other things he lies about, one can find the truth pretty easily. So he's not REALLY lying at all, he's just hoping you're stupid enough to believe him.

Same thing as A.G. Barr lying about it.

It's really no big deal

-DSK

This is going to be fun, Barr has to testify that he deliberately lied to protect the president or he perjures himself. Mueller comes in and tells the truth, and Barr gets impeached. This promises to be a good trial run to the big show coming up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

This is going to be fun, Barr has to testify that he deliberately lied to protect the president or he perjures himself. Mueller comes in and tells the truth, and Barr gets impeached. This promises to be a good trial run to the big show coming up.

.... Or the spin machine makes it look like Mueller is a vindictive Republi/mocrat, and that Barr is a halo wearing saint.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An AG obstructing justice?

Well he was one of Donnie’s best people, how long before they throw him under the bus?

The rate they jettison people there might not be too many left , and those remaining will be facing a subpoena to have a little chat to congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Were I asking the questions, #1 would be “Did you end your investigation because you were finished or were you ordered or otherwise compelled to end it?”

"I don't recall."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

.... Or the spin machine makes it look like Mueller is a vindictive Republi/mocrat, and that Barr is a halo wearing saint.....

I'm glad that Barr has a reputation, or that is exactly what would happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Nice try. It is not the quality of the summary at issue.

Mueller questions whether the summary accurately reflects his report’s context, nature or substance. 

"However, according to both the Post and the Justice Department, Mueller made clear that he did not feel Barr's summary was inaccurate. Instead, Mueller told Barr that media coverage of the letter had "misinterpreted" the results of the probe concerning obstruction of justice.

“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,” Mueller told the DOJ. “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.”

In a statement to Fox News, DOJ spokesperson Kerri Kupec noted that Mueller had not faulted the accuracy of Barr's summary, and offered more details on Barr's actions.

“After the Attorney General received Special Counsel Mueller’s letter, he called him to discuss it," Kupec said. "In a cordial and professional conversation, the Special Counsel emphasized that nothing in the Attorney General’s March 24 letter was inaccurate or misleading. But, he expressed frustration over the lack of context and the resulting media coverage regarding the Special Counsel’s obstruction analysis. They then discussed whether additional context from the report would be helpful and could be quickly released."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-to-face-dem-grilling-in-first-senate-hearing-since-mueller-report-release

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

"However, according to both the Post and the Justice Department, Mueller made clear that he did not feel Barr's summary was inaccurate. Instead, Mueller told Barr that media coverage of the letter had "misinterpreted" the results of the probe concerning obstruction of justice.

“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,” Mueller told the DOJ. “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.”

In a statement to Fox News, DOJ spokesperson Kerri Kupec noted that Mueller had not faulted the accuracy of Barr's summary, and offered more details on Barr's actions.

“After the Attorney General received Special Counsel Mueller’s letter, he called him to discuss it," Kupec said. "In a cordial and professional conversation, the Special Counsel emphasized that nothing in the Attorney General’s March 24 letter was inaccurate or misleading. But, he expressed frustration over the lack of context and the resulting media coverage regarding the Special Counsel’s obstruction analysis. They then discussed whether additional context from the report would be helpful and could be quickly released."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-to-face-dem-grilling-in-first-senate-hearing-since-mueller-report-release

Yep, he artfully twisted the words. It will be nice to hear him say that under oath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

"However, according to both the Post and the Justice Department, Mueller made clear that he did not feel Barr's summary was inaccurate. Instead, Mueller told Barr that media coverage of the letter had "misinterpreted" the results of the probe concerning obstruction of justice.

“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,” Mueller told the DOJ. “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.”

In a statement to Fox News, DOJ spokesperson Kerri Kupec noted that Mueller had not faulted the accuracy of Barr's summary, and offered more details on Barr's actions.

“After the Attorney General received Special Counsel Mueller’s letter, he called him to discuss it," Kupec said. "In a cordial and professional conversation, the Special Counsel emphasized that nothing in the Attorney General’s March 24 letter was inaccurate or misleading. But, he expressed frustration over the lack of context and the resulting media coverage regarding the Special Counsel’s obstruction analysis. They then discussed whether additional context from the report would be helpful and could be quickly released."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-to-face-dem-grilling-in-first-senate-hearing-since-mueller-report-release

We got Dog to read.  Now that you know that the summary does not cover the context, nature of substance of the report, will you be reading the report before telling us about it?

If getting the context, nature or substance of the report wrong is not being inaccurate, I will defer to the Special Counsel's interpretation.  I wouldn't want to be accused of the kind of Doggy Style dishonesty that Mueller describes. “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.”

Barr Doggy Styled in his testimony to Congress.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Yep, he artfully twisted the words. It will be nice to hear him say that under oath.

Exactly.  I look forward to that line of questioning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Exactly.  I look forward to that line of questioning. 

Donnie is going to be a handful tonight and tomorrow morning, I look forward to twitter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

I doubt anyone could in a few pages but then he released the report itself so the quality of his summary is moot.

Well, it would be if people read the report. However, you are proof positive that the quality of his summary matters. Thanks for, once again, demonstrating why we need to cater for the lowest common denominator in everything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Well, it would be if people read the report. However, you are proof positive that the quality of his summary matters. Thanks for, once again, demonstrating why we need to cater for the lowest common denominator in everything. 

Donald Trump has weaponized ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Donald Trump has weaponized ignorance.

Nah, it's been a political weapon for decades. Especially in the states where getting someone to give up trying to get to the bottom of an issue actually results in people not voting (and therefore giving the ignorant electoral power disproportionate to their numbers).

Trump has merely eschewed "plausible deniability". Which is why the smart &/or honest conservatives gave up & are waiting for a change in president before crawling back to defend their team. What we have left are the dumb &/or dishonest (e.g. Dog, BillDBastard, etc,), outright trolls (warbird, Jeffie, Saorsa, etc) and one or two die-hard "we're all to blame, stop trying to pin this on the right" deflectors who can't seem to manage to practice what they preach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Well, it would be if people read the report. However, you are proof positive that the quality of his summary matters. Thanks for, once again, demonstrating why we need to cater for the lowest common denominator in everything. 

Bundys-popcorn-2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Nah, it's been a political weapon for decades. Especially in the states where getting someone to give up trying to get to the bottom of an issue actually results in people not voting (and therefore giving the ignorant electoral power disproportionate to their numbers).

Trump has merely eschewed "plausible deniability". Which is why the smart &/or honest conservatives gave up & are waiting for a change in president before crawling back to defend their team. What we have left are the dumb &/or dishonest (e.g. Dog, BillDBastard, etc,), outright trolls (warbird, Jeffie, Saorsa, etc) and one or two die-hard "we're all to blame, stop trying to pin this on the right" deflectors who can't seem to manage to practice what they preach.

“Alright let’s not get personal... WHO SAID THAT?” - John Candy, Volunteers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barr May have perjured himself when answering Van Hollen’s Question. 

Amendment 1: see post above. 

Amendment 2: dogballs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no perjury because this is about style, not substance.

Mueller is pissed, because he worked VERY hard to maintain discipline and deliver a quality product the nation would believe. 

And then along comes Barr with his transparently partisan press conference  that painted a rosy picture for FOXy news, Prez Trump and, apparently, Dog. It’s a picture of a dumpster fire, tho: that’s why it’s ruby red.

Now the report is tainted goods, and a tarnished Mueller will have to dance for the House. He’ll remain a company man, because that’s who he is, but he’ll express regret that his product was oversold by a bilthering idiot.

Meanwhiie, Dog is concerned, wondering what his next lines will be & who will deliver them. It’s got to be tough, fighting an orderly retreat for an incompetent noob. Trump really doesn’t deserve such loyalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, J28 said:

Still - no Russian collusion!

But of course!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

We got Dog to read.  Now that you know that the summary does not cover the context, nature of substance of the report, will you be reading the report before telling us about it?

If getting the context, nature or substance of the report wrong is not being inaccurate, I will defer to the Special Counsel's interpretation.  I wouldn't want to be accused of the kind of Doggy Style dishonesty that Mueller describes. “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.”

Barr Doggy Styled in his testimony to Congress.  

You're doggie stylin, Mueller did not say the summary got anything wrong. On the contrary he said it was accurate but that it did not fully capture the context, nature and substance which is the nature of a summary. They're spinning you again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dog said:

You're doggie stylin, Mueller did not say the summary got anything wrong. On the contrary he said it was accurate but that it did not fully capture the context, nature and substance which is the nature of a summary. They're spinning you again.

Go with that. You’ll get far. 

 

At a comedy club. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Go with that. You’ll get far. 

 

At a comedy club. 

 

“After the Attorney General received Special Counsel Mueller’s letter, he called him to discuss it,” a Justice Department spokeswoman said Tuesday evening. “In a cordial and professional conversation, the Special Counsel emphasized that nothing in the Attorney General’s March 24 letter was inaccurate or misleading. But, he expressed frustration over the lack of context and the resulting media coverage regarding the Special Counsel’s obstruction analysis. They then discussed whether additional context from the report would be helpful and could be quickly released." 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mueller-complained-that-barrs-letter-did-not-capture-context-of-trump-probe/ar-AAAKJB8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
kUuht00m_bigger.jpg
 
 
 
·
Apr 29
 
Bob Mueller was a great HERO to the Radical Left Democrats. Now that the Mueller Report is finished, with a finding of NO COLLUSION & NO OBSTRUCTION (based on a review of Report by our highly respected A.G.), the Dems are going around saying, “Bob who, sorry, don’t know the man.”
 
22.4K
 
22K
 
85K
 
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Dog said:

 

“After the Attorney General received Special Counsel Mueller’s letter, he called him to discuss it,” a Justice Department spokeswoman said Tuesday evening. “In a cordial and professional conversation, the Special Counsel emphasized that nothing in the Attorney General’s March 24 letter was inaccurate or misleading. But, he expressed frustration over the lack of context and the resulting media coverage regarding the Special Counsel’s obstruction analysis. They then discussed whether additional context from the report would be helpful and could be quickly released." 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mueller-complained-that-barrs-letter-did-not-capture-context-of-trump-probe/ar-AAAKJB8

A Justice Department Spokeswoman. 

Go with that. That’ll work. 

In a comedy club. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:
33 minutes ago, Dog said:

 

“After the Attorney General received Special Counsel Mueller’s letter, he called him to discuss it,” a Justice Department spokeswoman said Tuesday evening. “In a cordial and professional conversation, the Special Counsel emphasized that nothing in the Attorney General’s March 24 letter was inaccurate or misleading. But, he expressed frustration over the lack of context and the resulting media coverage regarding the Special Counsel’s obstruction analysis. They then discussed whether additional context from the report would be helpful and could be quickly released." 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mueller-complained-that-barrs-letter-did-not-capture-context-of-trump-probe/ar-AAAKJB8

A Justice Department Spokeswoman. 

Go with that. That’ll work. 

In a comedy club. 

Dog openly admits he prefers to let others read things and tell him what they say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Dog openly admits he prefers to let others read things and tell him what they say.

Have they got you cranked up over this too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Dog openly admits he prefers to let others read things and tell him what they say.

But he'll only believe them if they tell him what he wants to hear. Wilful ignorance at it's finest most common.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Mark Set said:

this thread is still here? Lmaooooo

Still laughing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Dog said:

 

“After the Attorney General received Special Counsel Mueller’s letter, he called him to discuss it,” a Justice Department spokeswoman said Tuesday evening. “In a cordial and professional conversation, the Special Counsel emphasized that nothing in the Attorney General’s March 24 letter was inaccurate or misleading. But, he expressed frustration over the lack of context and the resulting media coverage regarding the Special Counsel’s obstruction analysis. They then discussed whether additional context from the report would be helpful and could be quickly released." 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mueller-complained-that-barrs-letter-did-not-capture-context-of-trump-probe/ar-AAAKJB8

So this is Barr' mouthpiece making a statement about the interaction and it still comes out that Barr's letter was hugely biased.  Barr's summary and press conference were poor attempts to act as Trump's counsel and shape the discussion of the report. He did a decent job of the former and a poor one of the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Dog said:
36 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Dog openly admits he prefers to let others read things and tell him what they say.

Have they got you cranked up over this too?

Have you read the Mueller report?  Last I saw, you admitted you hadn't.  

If you haven't read it, how do you know what's in it?

(hint - you rely on others)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Have you read the Mueller report?  Last I saw, you admitted you hadn't.  

If you haven't read it, how do you know what's in it?

(hint - you rely on others)

I don't need to read it to know that what Barr did in issuing his summary and the report itself was entirely appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:
27 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Have you read the Mueller report?  Last I saw, you admitted you hadn't.  

If you haven't read it, how do you know what's in it?

(hint - you rely on others)

I don't need to read it to know that what Barr did in issuing his summary and the report itself was entirely appropriate.

Your admission of preferring others tell you what is in a report you choose not to read is clear and indisputable.

You want to rely on hearsay and interpretation.

Bad Dog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

Your admission of preferring others tell you what is in a report you choose not to read is clear and indisputable.

You want to rely on hearsay and interpretation.

Bad Dog.

Your petty personal shit is getting old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

I don't need to read it to know that what Barr did in issuing his summary and the report itself was entirely appropriate for any Trumpettes who love their Pussy-Grabber-In-Chief more than they love their country, or the truth.

FIFY

-DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dog said:

Your petty personal shit is getting old.

Don't like getting your nose rubbed in it?  Don't shit in the house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Don't like getting your nose rubbed in it?  Don't shit in the house.

OFGS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

\

9 hours ago, phillysailor said:

There is no perjury because this is about style, not substance.

Mueller is pissed, because he worked VERY hard to maintain discipline and deliver a quality product the nation would believe. 

And then along comes Barr with his transparently partisan press conference  that painted a rosy picture for FOXy news, Prez Trump and, apparently, Dog. It’s a picture of a dumpster fire, tho: that’s why it’s ruby red.

Now the report is tainted goods, and a tarnished Mueller will have to dance for the House. He’ll remain a company man, because that’s who he is, but he’ll express regret that his product was oversold by a bilthering idiot.

Meanwhiie, Dog is concerned, wondering what his next lines will be & who will deliver them. It’s got to be tough, fighting an orderly retreat for an incompetent noob. Trump really doesn’t deserve such loyalty.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, nor how you came to that conclusion.  Wanna help a brudda out?   From where I'm sitting - Mueller did everything appropriately, the content of the report, even redacted, demonstrates this.  The unredacted content will be seen by committee, and that committee will have the authority and responsibility to act.   I'm not sure how to square what I'm thinking w/the bolded part of your comment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

So this is Barr' mouthpiece making a statement about the interaction and it still comes out that Barr's letter was hugely biased.  Barr's summary and press conference were poor attempts to act as Trump's counsel and shape the discussion of the report. He did a decent job of the former and a poor one of the latter.

 

Barr's letter was "hugely biased" only to those misguided people who believe that it's reasonable to expect that a 4 page summary would "fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of a 448 page report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dog said:

 

Barr's letter was "hugely biased" only to those misguided people who believe that it's reasonable to expect that a 4 page summary would "fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of a 448 page report.

How would you know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

How would you know?

4 pages vs 448 pages. Do you think it reasonable to expect that the 4 pages will convey all that the 448 pages do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Dog said:

4 pages vs 448 pages. Do you think it reasonable to expect that the 4 pages will convey all that the 448 pages do?

I guess that explains a lot of your Trump defense. You haven’t read the 448 pages that “covey” the whole story. 4 pages seems good enough for you. 

Yeah, I know, you’re not a Trump supporter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sean said:
26 minutes ago, Dog said:

4 pages vs 448 pages. Do you think it reasonable to expect that the 4 pages will convey all that the 448 pages do?

I guess that explains a lot of your Trump defense. You haven’t read the 448 pages that “covey” the whole story. 4 pages seems good enough for you. 

Yeah, I know, you’re not a Trump supporter. 

Did Dog even read the 4 page summary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Your petty personal shit is getting old.

And your petty self-imposed ignorance was old before the thread started. So what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Dog said:

Barr's letter was "hugely biased" only to those misguided people who believe that it's reasonable to expect that a 4 page summary would "fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of a 448 page report.

So Mueller was "misguided" now. Sad how predictable it was that you'd be throwing shade at him so soon after he started correcting deliberate mischaracterisation of his work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Dog said:

4 pages vs 448 pages. Do you think it reasonable to expect that the 4 pages will convey all that the 448 pages do?

Reasonable would have been releasing Mueller's summarys; nothing classified in them. Wonder why Barr didn't?

Wonder why you are in here bullshitting up a storm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Source: Axios

The House Judiciary Committee voted along party lines on Tuesday to allot an extra hour of questioning via staff lawyers at Attorney General Bill Barr's hearing on the Mueller report on Thursday. 

Why it matters: Barr has threatened to cancel his appearance before the committee if House Democrats went forward with the current format, which breaks from traditional 5-minute rounds of lawmaker questioning. If he does so, House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler has said he will subpoena Barr and potentially hold him in contempt of Congress if he does not comply. 

The big picture: Thursday's hearing is House Democrats' first opportunity to question Barr since the release of the redacted Mueller report, after many accused the attorney general of spinning the special counsel's findings on behalf of President Trump. Special counsel Robert Mueller sent a letter to Barr on March 27 objecting to his characterization of the report.

Read more: https://www.axios.com/house-democrats-judiciary-bill-barr-mueller-report-ec083509-8d68-4b4a-8acb-4b41a9183982.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic&utm_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dog said:

I don't need to read it to know that what Barr did in issuing his summary and the report itself was entirely appropriate.

That statement might be the most idiotic thing you've ever written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Raz'r said:
4 hours ago, Dog said:

I don't need to read it to know that what Barr did in issuing his summary and the report itself was entirely appropriate.

That statement might be the most idiotic thing you've ever written.

Dog knows that it is appropriate to change the wording of Mueller's sentence "did not establish" to Barr's more appropriate "found no evidence"

Hell, Trump was found guilty of racial discrimination by a court, and Dog (along with the other Trumpettes) thinks it is perfectly appropriate to say that he was completely exonerated and never guilty of anything and NO he's certainly definitely not a racist.

Lying.... it's the new "telling the truth."

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dog said:

I don't need to read it to know that what Barr did in issuing his summary and the report itself was entirely appropriate.

Quoted for its essential Dogginess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Here is Mueller's letter.

 

 

D5fFJOlXkAUcdrD.jpgD5fFJOnW0AAFQsd.jpg

Glad I stuck with what Mueller said instead of taking Dog’s word for it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mueller letter #2 sent the day after the 4 page summary was published.

Corrected and thanks!

D5fJkdSWkAAow7A.jpg

 

D5fJlTiWsAUEu9_.jpgD5fJmHgW0AEwpem.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, badlatitude said:

Mueller letter #2 sent the day after the 4 page summary was published.

 

 

 

That's the same as the letter above...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Glad I stuck with what Mueller said instead of taking Dog’s word for it. 

At this rate, Dog is going to have to hitch a ride with Jack aboard the USS Sorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comey's Op-Ed in the NYT.

"People have been asking me hard questions. What happened to the leaders in the Trump administration, especially the attorney general, Bill Barr, who I have said was due the benefit of the doubt? 

How could Mr. Barr, a bright and accomplished lawyer, start channeling the president in using words like “no collusion” and F.B.I. “spying”? And downplaying acts of obstruction of justice as products of the president’s being “frustrated and angry,” something he would never say to justify the thousands of crimes prosecuted every day that are the product of frustration and anger? 

How could he write and say things about the report by Robert Mueller, the special counsel, that were apparently so misleading that they prompted written protest from the special counsel himself? 

How could Mr. Barr go before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday and downplay President Trump’s attempt to fire Mr. Mueller before he completed his work? 

And how could Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, after the release of Mr. Mueller’s report that detailed Mr. Trump’s determined efforts to obstruct justice, give a speech quoting the president on the importance of the rule of law? Or on resigning, thank a president who relentlessly attacked both him and the Department of Justice he led for “the courtesy and humor you often display in our personal conversations”? 

What happened to these people? 

I don’t know for sure. People are complicated, so the answer is most likely complicated. But I have some idea from four months of working close to Mr. Trump and many more months of watching him shape others. 

Amoral leaders have a way of revealing the character of those around them. Sometimes what they reveal is inspiring. For example, James Mattis, the former secretary of defense, resigned over principle, a concept so alien to Mr. Trump that it took days for the president to realize what had happened, before he could start lying about the man. 

But more often, proximity to an amoral leader reveals something depressing. I think that’s at least part of what we’ve seen with Bill Barr and Rod Rosenstein. Accomplished people lacking inner strength can’t resist the compromises necessary to survive Mr. Trump and that adds up to something they will never recover from. It takes character like Mr. Mattis’s to avoid the damage, because Mr. Trump eats your soul in small bites." 




https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/opinion/william-barr-testimony.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dog said:

 

“After the Attorney General received Special Counsel Mueller’s letter, he called him to discuss it,” a Justice Department spokeswoman said Tuesday evening. “In a cordial and professional conversation, the Special Counsel emphasized that nothing in the Attorney General’s March 24 letter was inaccurate or misleading. But, he expressed frustration over the lack of context and the resulting media coverage regarding the Special Counsel’s obstruction analysis. They then discussed whether additional context from the report would be helpful and could be quickly released." 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mueller-complained-that-barrs-letter-did-not-capture-context-of-trump-probe/ar-AAAKJB8

Mueller’s letter is posted in the thread now. Can you show us the language identified in your post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Mueller’s letter is posted in the thread now. Can you show us the language identified in your post?

The post you identified did not include language from Mueller's letter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dog said:

The post you identified did not include language from Mueller's letter.

Go with that. That’ll work. 

In a comedy club. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

 

Reasonable would have been releasing Mueller's summarys; nothing classified in them. Wonder why Barr didn't?

Wonder why you are in here bullshitting up a storm.

Reasonable would be releasing the entire report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dog said:

Reasonable would be releasing the entire report.

Would you read it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, badlatitude said:

At this rate, Dog is going to have to hitch a ride with Jack aboard the USS Sorrow.

Why? Dog knows his role, he plays his part well. It took the Soviet Union 40+ years to collapse after Kennan described it's Dogs as such & as with the USSR, containment is the only strategy.

Quote

 The individuals who are the components of this machine are unamenable to argument or reason, which comes to them from outside sources. Their whole training has taught them to mistrust and discount the glib persuasiveness of the outside world. Like the white dog before the phonograph, they hear only the "master's voice." And if they are to be called off from the purposes last dictated to them, it is the master who must call them off. Thus the foreign representative cannot hope that his words will make any impression on them. The most that he can hope is that they will be transmitted to those at the top, who are capable of changing the party line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Would you read it?

Not likley, but thanks to AG Barr you can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dog said:

Not likley, but thanks to AG Barr you can.

If it's a redacted copy, why waste your time? I'll wait for FOIA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

If it's a redacted copy, why waste your time? I'll wait for FOIA

Then you havn't read it either?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

If it's a redacted copy, why waste your time? I'll wait for FOIA

You're the one wasting your time then.   I'll remind you - you don't have a "need to know", and "dammit - I hate them and I'm pissed and I want them all gone" isn't justification either.   Damn, BL - given some of the places you've been, you really had to have your shit wired tight.  Where you are now is pitiful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites