I'll just excerpt the part about Bill Clinton:
Just as in daily life, judges say that a literally true answer can nevertheless be false if the witness knows what the questioner is getting at and intends to mislead by exploiting an imprecise question....
Bill Clinton famously argued that he did not lie at his deposition when he denied ever having had sex or being alone in a room with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton proposed definitions of “sex” and “alone” that, he argued, would make his answers true. In imposing sanctions against him, Judge Susan Weber Wright wrote:
Simply put, the President’s deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false, notwithstanding tortured definitions and interpretations of the term “sexual relations.”
पोस्ट्स
१९८ टिप्पण्या:
judges say that a literally true answer can nevertheless be false
Judges say a lot of stuff, and Bill Clinton isn't an example of anything except lying.
Does this make sense to lawyers? Because AINAL, but that sounds completely crazy. Clinton was flat-out lying. He can't say, No, I didn't, and then say he was saying nawaididdend in Swahili, which means, I am not a pencil. We are assume to be speaking a common language.
Not volunteering information, answering the question asked - that is not remotely a lie, and if it is true that someone can indeed be convicted of perjury for that, it is unjust.
'Rep. Charlie Crist asked Barr if he knew why “members of the Special Counsel’s team” were publicly reported to be saying that Barr’s March 24 summary of Robert Mueller’s report “does not adequately or accurately, necessarily, portray the report’s findings.” Barr replied in part, “No, I don’t.”' Whoa? He said he didn't know, when he had some information on the topic. "I don't know" can be perjury?
Unbelievable.
An example of lying and a balanced budget.
Meanwhile, what really happened since 2015, is that Democrats rigged their primaries, rigged a presidential debate, tried to rig a presidential election and failed, and in the aftermath corrupted the FBI and DOJ with a scheme to depose a legitimately elected president.
Here is the "lie". Judge for yourselves.
CRIST: Reports have emerged recently, General, that members of the special counsel’s team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24th letter . . . that it does not adequately or accurately necessarily portray the report’s findings. Do you know what they’re referencing with that?
BARR: No, I don’t. I think — I think . . . I suspect that they probably wanted more put out, but, in my view, I was not interested in putting out summaries or trying to summarize because I think any summary, regardless of who prepares it, not only runs the risk of, you know, being under-inclusive or over-inclusive, but also, you know, would trigger a lot of discussion and analysis that really should await everything coming out at once. So I was not interested in a summary of the report. . . . I felt that I should state the bottom line conclusions and I tried to use Special Counsel Mueller’s own language in doing that.
This post reminds me of Althouse's post yesterday about the great White Supremacy hysteria in suburban Chicago.
Likewise, the reality is that Chicago is plagued by black and Mexican gangs who murder one another and potential witnesses to their crimes with impunity. The city of Chicago and the Democratic Party are allied with those black gangs.
How do Democrats manage to turn these things upside down?
The Mueller letter doesn't specify why he/the team/whomever felt Barr's statement "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions," other than to state the summaries contained in the Mueller Report do "fully capture" the work of the special prosecutor. The Mueller letter does not say why the Barr statement was inadequate, just that it supposedly was inadequate. As a result, Barr testified truthfully in all senses when he said that he did not know why Mueller/his team thought Barr's statement was inadequate.
I was pretty young when the whole Clinton thing went down. As a kid, I didn’t think “oral sex” was the same as “having sex,” that it was a mere sex act that went along with package. There can still be sex without oral sex. But experience has taught me that it’s actually a very intimate act. I think my impression back then was that it was a step beyond kissing, or something. I didn’t think it was a big deal back then because I didn’t yet have too much experience with it.
Crist asked Barr if he knew why “members of the Special Counsel’s team” were publicly reported to be saying...
What was Barr supposed to say?
"no, i don't know WHY the NYTs reports things; but my assumption was that it was to besmirch Trump?"
Can any of You testify, under OATH; WHY I just wrote this? Are you mind readers?
Don't forget is. We had to parse the meaning of is. Something about is and never was vs. something else....
The phrase that jumps out at me is this:
Barr replied in part...
In part? Everyone is a liar if you take their spoken words in part.
Kay said...
I was pretty young when the whole Clinton thing went down. As a kid, I didn’t think “oral sex” was the same as “having sex,” that it was a mere sex act that went along with package.
Actually it is WAY more intimate. Putting somebodies genitals in your mouth not being sex is ludicrous. Think about it.
I see jnsteward went to the transcript and backed up my suspicion.
Lawprof Stephen Gillers wrote something that is literally true and clearly deceptive.
Good Lord. Change two minor words in the question to make it better and Barr's statement makes perfect sense.
"Do you know what they’re referencing with that?"
Do you know why they’re referencing that?
BARR: No, I don’t. I think — I think . . . I suspect that they probably wanted more put out, but, in my view, I was not interested in putting out summaries or trying to summarize because I think any summary, regardless of who prepares it, not only runs the risk of, you know, being under-inclusive or over-inclusive, but also, you know, would trigger a lot of discussion and analysis that really should await everything coming out at once. So I was not interested in a summary of the report. . . . I felt that I should state the bottom line conclusions and I tried to use Special Counsel Mueller’s own language in doing that."
Barr's answer is expansive, not clipped at all, which is what the article implies.
For as educated as they are, Lawyers sure can be dumb.
Kay said...
I was pretty young when the whole Clinton thing went down. As a kid, I didn’t think “oral sex” was the same as “having sex,”
ah but! they didn't ask Clinton if he was "having sex", they asked him if he was having "sexual relations" with Monica. Hard to see how cumming all over someone's face and breasts isn't "sexual relations".
Oh, and they asked him if he'd ever been alone in a room with her; and he said: "No"
This was an out and out lie.
wendybar said...
Actually it is WAY more intimate. Putting somebodies genitals in your mouth not being sex is ludicrous. Think about it.
I know it is, but that’s not what I thought when I was just a kid.
@Althouse, I got two (2) paragraphs into the article and decided that I know pettifogging when I see it.
Dickens was right about the law, and Shakespeare’s solution looks better by the day.
Kay said...
I was pretty young when the whole Clinton thing went down.
If I remember correctly, it was actually the Monica thing that went down...
I can even recall people in high school and middle school who had only had oral sex at that point in their life, and still considered themselves virgins.
From the article, are the quotes in the wrong place?
Charlie Crist asked Barr if he knew why “members of the Special Counsel’s team” were publicly reported to be saying that Barr’s March 24 summary of Robert Mueller’s report “does not adequately or accurately, necessarily, portray the report’s findings.” Barr replied in part, “No, I don’t.”
Just because they write a letter to him telling them that Barr's summary doesn't 'accurately portray' the report, doesn't mean he knows 'why' it doesn't especially if, indeed, it does.
We have both the summary, and the report (albeit with parts redacted). In what way do they not match?
Just to be more ridiculous, Barr wasn't asked IF he knew about the complaints of Mueller's team. He was asked WHY they were complaining. He didn't deny knowledge of the complaints. He said he didn't understand why they were complaining.
And of course, Bill Clinton didn't just give ONE misleading answer. He gave a series of misleading answers all designed to deliberately deceive. And most importantly, Clinton's explanation of his answers was so ridiculous that his intent to lie was unmistakable. It's like Clinton was asked "Is the sky blue?" and he said no and then tried to pretend that he always thought the color blue was actually called "orange."
Future historians are going to be fascinated with how the elite's reaction to Donald Trump was to double down on the arrogant foolishness that allowed his election in the first place.
Mike
Legalistic navel gazing.
All the more reason not to talk to these inquisitors.
Bill Barr was alone in a room with Lewinski? weird.
"Did you have sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky?"
"No, I didn't. I used my cigar on her." -- BJ Clinton
Mueller didn't write the letter. His pro-Hillary democratic staff did.
Never seen in the same room at the same time - the truth and any Democrat.
I know the partisan points are being made endlessly. Mueller went on for a while proving no collusion--that is, no evidence of anyone associated with Trump, indeed any American, carrying out any improper coordinataion or conspiracy with anyone associated with the Russian government. Then he went on at the same length saying there might have been obstruction. Trump lost his temper and said he wanted to fire Mueller, although he never actually did this, or in fact did anything to prevent anyone from investigating anything. He ordered White House staff to cooperate fully, and now we are told that wasn't Trump cooperating, it was the White House. Talk about splitting hairs. And now: Barr knew Mueller wasn't happy with the "summary" of his report by Barr, so he lied when he said he didn't know about this. Once Mueller finishes his report, how Barr summarizes it is none of Mueller's business. It is Mueller's report that is a disgrace. None of us would want a prosecutor to say formally that we might be guilty of a crime, although nothing can be proved. As long as I have no alibi for Thursday night, I might have committed a crime that night. Prosecutorial misconduct, for which Weissmann, presumably the brains of the outfit, is famous.
So, what question was he being asked that makes it a lie?
Was he being asked whether he knew that the special council team were not happy with his summary, or whether he knew why they were unhappy with his summary?
The problem as I see it, and I suspect everyone else, is that the summary does adequately capture the contents of the report, and they are not happy with that.
n "When Is a 'Literally True”' Statement False and a Crime?"
When the statement is made by a Republican and fact checked by Politico
Sure, Clinton was a practitioner of the lawyerly lie--a statement intended to mislead but that can in some narrow technical sense be construed to be true--but that's not really the same thing as a literally true statement that is nevertheless false.
I object to congressional hearings being "under oath". You aren't talking about a courtroom scenario in which witnesses are supposed to give direct questions to direct answers, a defendants is protected against self-incrimination, and there are clear rules of evidence that lawyers on both sides can invoke.
Instead we have open-ended forums in which there are no rules of evidence, no constraint on the type of questions that can be asked, and witnesses are expected to talk at length without legal protection. Inevitably witnesses mishear, misspeak, conflate facts, elaborate unnecessarily, stumble over wording, and contradict themselves. To parse out such blunders and declare criminality is idiotic and inhumane, whether you are talking about Oliver North, Anita Hill, Hillary Clinton, Brett Kavanaugh, or Bill Barr.
Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller will not testify publicly before Congress, because he fears that he will not want to answer questions about whether he and Rod Rosenstein secretly recorded their conversation with President Trump.
They did record the conversation. If Mueller denies that they did so, then he cannot count on Rosenstein to confirm it. Rosenstein already might have told the truth to President Trump and might be willing to testify against Mueller.
Andrew McCabe wrote in his recent book that Mueller forgot his cell phone in the Oval Office and had to retrieve it on the following day.
Yesterday, Sundance at The Conservative Treehouse published a superb article titled Mueller “Team” Does Not Want Special Counsel to Testify.
Mueller and Rosenstein secretly recorded their conversation with Trump on May 16, 2017. On the next day, Rosenstein informed Congress's "Gang of Eight" that he intended to investigate Trump for obstruction of justice, and he appointed Mueller as to be Special Counsel.
In this situation, both Mueller and Rosenstein will be in legal jeopardy if the ever are questioned under oath. Furthermore, this situation involves Congress's "Gang of Eight".
For that reason, Mueller will not testify, and Congress's leaders will make sure that he will not testify to Congress.
It's creepy that Robert DeZarn was convicted of perjury just because some government lawyer didn't ask the right questions.
If we are talking about Clintons...
...is a joke also a lie, when asked directly about wiping her server, she replied 'with a cloth or something'. Sounds a lot like contempt, but is a minor thing that should just stand to demonstrate Clinton's feigned ignorance.
The entire leftwing cabal is corrupt to the core.
On this basis - why administer oaths each time when they have already taken oath at confirmaton of office? and why only the witnesses -
and more - can you ask / be asked a literal but untrue question?
It's also this kind of lawyer crap that demonstrates they are dishonest (yeah, a broad brush, but...sucks to be a lawyer). We are expected to answer the question as asked, not the question they should have asked; and now we are accused of lying because we don't answer the unspoken question correctly.
We are all still waiting for Hillary to pay for her lies, her corruption, her deceit, her money grubbing criminality on an international scale.
Is it too late for Congress to prosecute Anita Hill for perjury?
If not, then perhaps there could be a bipartisan deal to prosecute both Hill and Barr.
tim maguire said...
"When Is a 'Literally True”' Statement False and a Crime?"
When the statement is made by a Republican and fact checked by Politico
Looks like tim wins the internet!
If it's too late to prosecute Anita Hill, then perhaps an alternate bipartisan deal could be to prosecute Christina Blasey Ford for perjury.
and now we are accused of lying because we don't answer the unspoken question correctly.
Judges are very modest and usually don't say much about their otherwise remarkable ability to know what other people are thinking.
And that mind-reading is how they know that "the witness knows what the questioner is getting at".
Somewhere a manure pile is missing its pony.
As the following commenters point out, this Stephen Gillers of NYU really embarrassed himself with that article.
MBunge said...
Just to be more ridiculous, Barr wasn't asked IF he knew about the complaints of Mueller's team. He was asked WHY they were complaining. He didn't deny knowledge of the complaints. He said he didn't understand why they were complaining.
BamaBadgOR said...
The Mueller letter does not say why the Barr statement was inadequate, just that it supposedly was inadequate. As a result, Barr testified truthfully in all senses when he said that he did not know why Mueller/his team thought Barr's statement was inadequate.
@MikeR, “I don’t know” can indeed be a prosecutable lie if it is a provably false statement. There is no safe-harbor non-answer for a witness who prefers not to answer a question truthfully (other than invoking the Fifth Amendment, where applicable), though some non-answers are easier to prove false than others. The claim here is that the Mueller letter proves the falsity of “I don’t know.” Having said that, Prof. Gillers should be embarrassed to draw a parallel between the Clinton scenario and the Barr scenario, as one need not rely on strained and not-contemporaneously-disclosed definitions of commonly understood words in order to assert that Barr’s answer was truthful.
That's a pretty pathetic attempt to draw an equivilancy between Bill Clinton's lies and Bill Barr's testimony as if they're somehow the same. In Bill Barr's case, the ambiguity of the question itself can lead to several different interpretations. Do they expect Bill Barr to be a mind reader? But they believe that because Bill Barr didn't mention Mueller's snitty little missive in his response that that means Barr was somehow lying.
Ironically, the deceptive editing of Barr's comment makes Stephen Giller's own column a far better example of a statement that is literally true and yet false than the one Giller came up with.
My only regret is there are no comments over there.
Gillers is either missing the point or being obtuse:
"“members of the Special Counsel’s team” were publicly reported to be saying that Barr’s March 24 summary of Robert Mueller’s report “does not adequately or accurately, necessarily, portray the report’s findings.” Barr replied in part, “No, I don’t.”"
Barr knew that there were complaints that members of the Special Counsel's team were saying that his March 42 summary mischaracterized the report. What Barr doesn't understand is why they think this. This is especially irrelevant in light of the fact that he released a lightly redacted version of the report soon thereafter. This needs a BS tag. If he had a consciousness of guilt over deception, why would he have let out the report? He was under no legal compulsion to do so.
The question was all speculation and opinion! Mueller’s team didn’t like it. How would Barr know why? insane.
This justice-system story is less boring because it features toxically feminine cutie-pies!
Meet the 4 female prison guards who were impregnated by Black Guerrilla Family inmate Tavon White
To pile absurdity upon absurdity, the whole damn report has been published! And Barr knew it would be published when he testified. What the hell is this about? (rhetorical question)
Barr really screwed up everyone's plans by releasing almost the entire report. I bet they were expecting Barr to redact a lot more of the report. He only redacted grand jury testimony and some statements related to on going investigations, along with a few sentences about someone that was investigated by not indicted.
I suspect there was supposed to be months of leaks about the obstruction charges (without the caveats that Mueller included in the report), so that Trump would have to spend the rest of his term fighting off "new allegations from the secret Mueller report!" You can tell that was the plan, because the Democrats were following that plan to go after the small amount of redacted material.
The leftwing liars in the press and Nancy Pelvis and her corrupt cabal of corruptocrats must keep the big lie alive.
Obstruction of justice!
Hard to see how cumming all over someone's face and breasts isn't “sexual relations.”
Simple — check a dictionary.
Here's one: Merriam-Webster's:
“sexual relations – plural noun
1. (and only 1.): sexual intercourse.”
Clinton didn't have intercourse with Lewinsky, ergo they didn't have “sexual relations.”
"The entire leftwing cabal is corrupt to the core."
Careful, FaceBook gave me a 2 week suspension for saying that.
Althouse has gone wobbly on Free Speech, she's only a few steps behind them. She wants to argue and get hostile, fine. But to delete your sound rebuttal is cheap.
Mike Sylwester said..."For that reason, Mueller will not testify, and Congress's leaders will make sure that he will not testify to Congress."
Yeah, If Mueller testifies I'll eat my hat. Though I think Lindsey Graham should subpoena him, if for no other reason than to watch Senate Democrats squirm.
Are Democrats unhappy that Barr didn't go all judgy on Trump's reprehensible behavior in Vol II? The whole exercise was designed to drive an autocratic incautious non-lawyer businessman crazy. It worked!
As Thomas says, great job of "look, a squirrel!" to distract from Hillary's outrages. How DO they do that?
Just to pile on, let’s also remember Clinton told Lewinsky to lie under oath and lost his law license for this suborning perjury. Bill Barr is lawyer in good standing. Quite a contrast.
Clinton didn't have intercourse with Lewinsky, ergo they didn't have “sexual relations.”
(1) [Clinton] denied that he had a "sexual relationship" with Monica Lewinsky.
(2) He denied that he had a "sexual affair" with Monica Lewinsky.
(3) He denied that he had "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky.
(4) He denied that he engaged in or caused contact with the genitalia of "any person" with an intent to arouse or gratify (oral sex performed on him by Ms. Lewinsky).
(5) He denied that he made contact with Monica Lewinsky's breasts or genitalia with an intent to arouse or gratify.
Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller is an expert on perjury traps, and so he will not put him into a situation where he will be asked under oath whether he and Rod Rosenstein secretly recorded their conversation with President Trump on May 16, 2017.
The context of that conversation was that Rosenstein had offered to Andrew McCabe and to other top DOJ/FBI officials to secretly record conversations with President Trump. McCabe was not the only person present when Rosenstein's made that offer. Several top DOJ/FBI officials were present.
McCabe wrote in his recent book that Mueller left a cell phone in the Oval Office during his conversation with Rosenstein and Trump and that Mueller retrieved the phone on the following day.
After Mueller retrieved his cell phone, he surely played the recording -- which included Oval Office conversations after Mueller and Rosenstein departed -- to several people. Mueller played the recordings not only to Rosenstein but to a few other DOJ/FBI officials.
Now, if Mueller ever testifies under oath before Congress, then Mueller has to worry that ....
1) a Republican might ask Mueller whether he secretly recorded the conversation
2) Rosenstein and the other top DOJ/FBI officials all might not confirm Mueller's answers.
It seems that Rosenstein already has flipped. He already has told President Trump what really happened. If Rosenstein is called to testify about Mueller's answers, then Rosenstein will tell Congress and the public what really happened.
What a mess. Not only will Mueller avoid testifying to Congress, Congress's top leaders will make sure that he never will testify to Congress.
Robert Mueller Did Interview President Trump Regarding Obstruction Case
Mueller "Team" Does Not Want Special Counsel to Testify
So, if the answer to your question is "literally" true but you are all butt hurt because you didn't get the answer you wanted and you want to call it a lie.......perhaps you need to phrase your question more carefully.
Be precise in your questioning and don't leave wiggle room.
Definition of terms when asking vague questions about amorphous idea or practices, is also a good tactic.
Michael McNeil said...
“sexual relations – plural noun
1. (and only 1.): sexual intercourse.”
Clinton didn't have intercourse with Lewinsky, ergo they didn't have “sexual relations.”
The word intercourse comes up in Haruki Murakami's A Wild Sheep Chase in a way that Bill Clinton might appreciate. The narrator explains:
"We went back to the hotel and had intercourse. I like that word intercourse. It poses only a limited range of possibilities."
In the next chapter we are introduced to the Sheep Professor, the sheep expert whose career washed out when he admitted to "having a special relationship with sheep." A relationship, not intercourse.
You cucks still jealous of Bubba at the same time going full Lewinsky on Trump. When will you run out of holes?
Words have shadings, not just dictionary listed meanings.
To get lying, you have to include the point of the question and whether it's clear about its point; or it might be a gotcha lawyer question, after a procedural crime. Words are pretty much tied down to literal then, and a gotcha answer is acceptable, literal for literal.
Simple — check a dictionary.
Check a better dictionary.
Sexual Relations Law and Legal Definition
"Sexual relations refer to physical sexual activity that does not necessarily end up in an intercourse. It involves touching another person in his/her private parts. However, the person who touches and the person who is touched engage in sexual relations. It is also termed as sexual activity."
Did you have sex with that woman isn't a gotcha question.
Asking...Did you have sex with someone is a very imprecise question.
What is the definition of "having sex"? Intercourse with your anatomical parts (which is what most people would think...maybe)? Using handily available tools? Fancy sex toys from Japan with batteries? Heavy petting? S&M role play? Phone sex? Sexy texting and sending dick pics?
What did the questioner mean by "having sex"?
Don't ask questions that rely on the subject needing to read your mind.
From Random House Webster's college dictionary --
sexual relations, 1. sexual intercourse: coitus. 2. any sexual activity between individuals.
------------------
sexual 1. of or pertaining to sex. 2. occurring between or involving the sexes
--------------------
That sounds a lot like oral sex is having sexual relations.
"Does your dog bite?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXn2QVipK2o
Attempted drive by smearing of Barr tarring him as a legal liar, equivalent to President Clinton.
Made the author look extremely biased and a political hack, grasping at straws.
To pile on more, let’s recall Hillary Clinton’s fantastic memory regarding her secret email set up. She claimed she didn’t know or didn’t recall over 100 times, many in answer to questions the FBI could prove she had knowledge. It’s good to be on the privileged team in the Swamp.
Howard wrote: When will you run out of holes?
Not for a while. We're enjoying your hole too much.
"I was pretty young when the whole Clinton thing went down. As a kid, I didn’t think 'oral sex' was the same as 'having sex,' that it was a mere sex act that went along with package. There can still be sex without oral sex. But experience has taught me that it’s actually a very intimate act. I think my impression back then was that it was a step beyond kissing, or something. I didn’t think it was a big deal back then because I didn’t yet have too much experience with it."
It's more intimate than intercourse.
I remember reading stories in the media some years back that teen girls were engaging in all sorts of sexual activity, notably, oral sex, but were not having intercourse so they could say or believe they had not "had sex."
"How do they do it?" They are able to do it because their party members - the media- control the narrative. As Levin states , this is a grave problem in America. We don't have a free press. Think of it like Pravda and state run television in old communist Russia.
"Is it too late for Congress to prosecute Anita Hill for perjury?"
There's no proof she committed perjury.
I remember reading stories in the media some years back that teen girls were engaging in all sorts of sexual activity, notably, oral sex, but were not having intercourse so they could say or believe they had not "had sex."
Google "rainbow parties." And not the prideful sort.
I no longer read the details of the whole Russian collusion affair. My brain cells are too precious. I know in my intuition that Trump didn’t collude, that Democrats are covering up for the silent coup as well as doing oppo work for 2020, and that we will never have justice. Rather than be outraged, I’m trying to forget it like a good Soviet citizen circa 1945-80.
My only joy is knowing that Trump is not Nixon, that we won’t step down and won’t be taken down. In that regard, he is the greatest man I’ve ever witnessed in politics. This gives me great satisfaction.
Btw, watch “Chernobyl” on HBO. It applies.
Yes, if you just ignore the following sentences and STOP with "I don't know", then you might have a case. But Barr explains what he means by " I don't know".
This reminds me of Sessions-Franken exchange where Franken lied and said Sessions had misrepresented his Russia meetings, when Sessions just tried to answer an ambiguous long-winded Franken question that wasn't just "Imprecise" it was convoluted.
In Clinton's case he was asked a clear question, and then Clinton PRETENDED it was imprecise by by using alternate meaning of words.
IF I ask "Was the Basketball team upset over the call?" And I answer "I don't know" but Player Z wasn't. I haven't committed perjury. Did the questioners mean everyone on the BB team? The BB team as a whole? A majority?
RE: the definition that lawyers like to use: Sexual Relations Law and Legal Definition
Sexual relations refer to physical sexual activity that does not necessarily end up in an intercourse. It involves touching another person in his/her private parts. However, the person who touches and the person who is touched engage in sexual relations. It is also termed as sexual activity
Most people in the world would not consider that definition in its entirety to be "sexual relations". It is also so broad as to include many actions that most people would never consider sexual relations.
Kissing someone. Feeling each other up. Sniffing their hair while rubbing their shoulders :-) can all be pleasing (assuming everyone is agreeable) but again under common understanding....not sexual relations.
If the attorney wants to get a YES answer to his questions, then he/she needs to define the terms of sexual relations. Quote the definition under the law in your question, and not leave the understanding up to the subject of the question.
The understanding of an issue, and of the terms, by the answering party, is crucial as to whether the person is lying or not.
Note: I'm not defending Clinton or saying he isn't a lying weasel.
Just suggesting that if you want a clear unambiguous lie....you need a clear and UNambigious question.
Trump has a right to get upset at the Democrats harassment, although he should stop complaining about it at such great length. Its absolutely crazy, that Hillary and her gang could run an illegal email server out of their basement, lie about it, smash up cellphones that were asked for, and stonewall, and she gets Zero follow-up. The MSM didn't even want to ask her about it.
Meanwhile, there's no collusion and the MSM is STILL acting like its a big story.
"To pile absurdity upon absurdity, the whole damn report has been published! And Barr knew it would be published when he testified. What the hell is this about? (rhetorical question)"
Unredacted?
Not surprising gillers whitewashed everyone of hillarys evasions back to travelgate
If you were to poll the general populace on whether a blowy counts as "sex" (apropo of nothing), I suspect you'd get an overwhelming number of people who would say yes. But I could be wrong.
To me the problem is the wording of the question. He is asked do you “know”, not “do you have any idea” or some such question.
To know something implies a definite knowledge of what was in the head of The questioner.
He gave a perfectly reasonable answer, which was, I don’t know, but then proceeded to offer one possibility.
Getting a Lewinsky is "Sexual Relations". If I asked you "did Steal john's wallet?" and you replied "no", because you were just borrowing the wallett and intended to give it back - just without the $$. That's a lie.
Or if I asked "did you rob Joe?" and you say "NO" because you embezzled it. That's a lie too.
"To pile absurdity upon absurdity, the whole damn report has been published! And Barr knew it would be published when he testified. What the hell is this about? (rhetorical question)"
Unredacted?
Redacted. Redacted according to the legal requirements of disclosing such information. Some types of information are required to not be disclosed except under other legal processes
Do you want Barr to break the law? Make a special exception to the law just for the Democrats.
The question is whether the wording has such a universally accepted and concrete meaning that there can only be one honest answer. On that basis, Clinton clearly lied on the "alone" question. As for the sex questions, this thread shows that different people have different definitions. Regardless of the perceived intimacy of the various acts, sex is sex, oral sex is something else. And I don't think people who have only engaged in oral sex are no longer virgins. So, using vague terminology that means different things to different people is a terrible way to question a witness. Having said that, I don't think there's any doubt that he clearly tried to deceive and maybe he was asked enough factually specific enough questions to have lied (I don't care enough to go look at the questions), but the idea that "sexual relations" has a universally accepted definition that all reasonable people agree just isn't the case.
What are the specifics chapter and verse, weisdman didn't spell that out.
"Did you have sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky?"
"No" answered the cigar. Explaining further, the cigar stated: "I was manipulated by BJ Clinton."
If I asked you "did Steal john's wallet?" and you replied "no", because you were just borrowing the wallett and intended to give it back - just without the $$. That's a lie.
If I found the wallet, knew who John is, kept the money anyway, and maybe...give the wallet back....did I steal the wallet.
No. I found the wallet. I did steal the money, however, that wasn't the question you asked
:-)
The significance of the question to Clinton, was because it impinged on a law Clinton had signed regarding sexual harassment by a superior.
--Do you know why he said that?
--Objection, calls for speculation.
--Sustained.
There's a big difference between asking a "imprecise" question that however is well understood by every reasonable person and an "ambiguous" question that can have several meanings to everyone.
Judges don't want witnesses to play word games like Clinton, by in effect rephrasing and then answering questions that were never asked.
This isn't the case here. Besides, the idea you'll ever be able to convict the AG for such an inconsequential response is absurd.
From what I can tell,
Nobody really wants Mueller to testify.
They fear his testimony will shed light in areas, deliberately obtuse on Doygate/Russiagate.
Senator Graham was on Fox yesterday on Mueller, yet no mention of him forcing Mueller to testify.
Barr only gave them aural sex, and they wanted to fuck him over.
Blogger Robert Cook said.."Unredacted?"
The amount that lawmakers can't see, especially in the obstruction section is minuscule. And are you suggesting that Mueller was upset with Barr for not including these redacted portions in his summary?
Medical Definition of coitus: physical union of male and female genitalia accompanied by rhythmic movements : sexual intercourse sense
Does that mean that having anal sex is not having sex?
So, if a lawyer asks you an imprecise question, you're on the hook for telling him the answer to the question he should've asked but didn't?
I guess you probably need to lead him to the bodies buried in the backyard, too.
I am Laslo.
There's a big difference between asking a "imprecise" question that however is well understood by every reasonable person and an "ambiguous" question that can have several meanings to everyone.
The problem is that your subject is not "everyone" and possibly not a "reasonable person". You don't know what they "understand".
You need to pin down your subject, the person you are questioning, and make it clear what their understanding of a "common" term is to THEM, in order to make it clear that they are lying.
I'm pretty sure that Clinton was lying. Especially since he is also a lawyer and knows (or should know) the definition of "sexual relations" in a lawyerly sense. Agreed. Judges don't like playing twisty word games. Neither does the public.
Don't rephrase the questions that were asked. Just answer under your understanding of the terms :-) Ask better questions.
I'm beginning to think that homosexuals and lesbians can never have sexual relationships.
"Redacted. Redacted according to the legal requirements of disclosing such information. Some types of information are required to not be disclosed except under other legal processes."
Then we don't actually know everything.
Mind you, I don't think Trump colluded with the Russians to throw the election. I don't think Trump actually intended or expected to win, and he was as surprised as the nation when he won. I do think he had (and perhaps has) nonpolitical financial relations with the Russians. I also have seen or heard no convincing explanation how the Russians could have thrown the election. Ads on Facebook? C'mon. The whole "Russians threw the election for Trump" came from Hillary, wounded to the core that she lost to this shit, (and he is a shit, without question), so she created or latched onto the notion of Russian skullduggery to comfort her wounded ego and thwarted ambitions. It grew from there into a weapon to try to undo the election.
Obviously, its not up to the questioner to list every possible sex act, to get Clinton to say "yes". Sexual Relations covers pretty much everything.
Now, think about it. Clinton LIES under oath. Tries to get others to lie under oath. Gets impeached. And yet, everyone's cool with now, so Hillary and Bill ALMOST get back in the White House. The MSM Likes like it never happened.
Meanwhile, we're talking about whether Trump should be impeached because he obstructed an investigation into a crime he didn't commit by TALKING about replacing the Special Counsel. Its bizzaro world!
According to the UCMJ,"Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense."
"From what I can tell,
Nobody really wants Mueller to testify."
Inga does. That was her lastest fallback position. 'Just wait until Mueller testifies. THEN, I'll be rubbing your faces in it.'
Then we don't actually know everything
So true! It is impossible to know everything.
"The amount that lawmakers can't see, especially in the obstruction section is minuscule. And are you suggesting that Mueller was upset with Barr for not including these redacted portions in his summary?"
No, I'm asking about what we, the people can see. If a report is published with extensive redactions, we cannot say we actually "know" what is in the report.
Maybe Barr didn't know what "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions" meant because Mueller didn't explain why it didn't, and because it actually did.
"did Steal john's wallet?"
"I am not now and have never been a member of the Communist Party."
"I'm beginning to think that homosexuals and lesbians can never have sexual relationships."
That's right. The bible is against fornication and adultery. Nothing against butt sex. Or oral sex. Guess Mayor Butt-edge-edge is is right. He's the true Christian. Pence is a spawn of Satan.
Here is a bit of the backstory. I have beat some of this bloody in the past, so apologies in advance.
The purpose of the Mueller investigation, in reality, had nothing to do with Russian collusion. It was just the hook. They knew from almost the first that there was none. So part #1 of the report was not controversial. Instead, the purpose was two fold: to stall as long as they could the SpyGate investigation; and to potentially generate grounds for impeachment through Obstruction of Justice.
They couldn’t prove Obstruction because they could never prove Mens Rea, because they could never get a personal interview with Trump. Instead they got over a million pages of documents, etc, with Trump’s lawyers arguing that they couldn’t interview him until they could show that they needed information from him that they couldn’t get otherwise. And here are some more documents.
They were at an impasse a year ago, and Weissman, etc did some creative lawyering, reinterpreting one unrelated Obstruction statute clause to essentially eliminate the need for proving intent. Early last June, Trump’s Attorneys pushed back with a memo to Rosenstein eviscerating their creative theory. Six months later, Barr is confirmed AG, his interpretation is run through OLC and accepted as DoJ official interpretation, and the investigation is shut down because there never was any collusion and with that interpretation, absent a personal interview and consequent perjury trap, they weren’t going to prove Obstruction.
Here is the key here. The Mueller attorneys knew in advance that Barr, Rosenstein, and OLC were going to reject their theory of Obstruction. They already had, and it was official DoJ policy. They weren’t seriously making a legal argument for Obstruction in part#2, but rather were just throwing dirt at Trump in violation of DoJ policy. They were pretending to leave the decision up to Barr (Rosenstein and OLC) in order to make the dirt public. He cut through their BS by just stating that he, Rosenstein, and OLC had reviewed their dirt and concluded that it didn't qualify for DoJ prosecution. End of story. Of course it didn’t qualify, because he was AG, and his dept had adopted his interpretation (I believe though that it was probably under AG Sessions that the decision was made). The Mueller fanciful and very aggressive interpretation didn’t deserve comment because DoJ would never have adopted it, and courts wouldn’t have accepted it.
And the feelings of the Mueller prosecutors were irrelevant - they were his employees, and his job was not to represent their views. He has tens of thousands (FBI has 35k alone) of employees working for him and a $31 billion dollar budget. He doesn’t have time to worry about every butt hurt employee. He probably thought that they were butt hurt because he ignored their political BS in his summary, but he didn’t know, and had no interest in finding out. Not his problem. It was theirs. They were the employees, and he was the AG. End of story.
"Obviously, its not up to the questioner to list every possible sex act, to get Clinton to say "yes". Sexual Relations covers pretty much everything."
Actually, that's exactly what he should do if that is the crux of the case he is deposing a witness on (particularly if that witness also happens to be the sitting President of the United States). To suggest that a deposition which may well be used to bring future perjury charges shouldn't involve some concrete level of specificity and we can just leave it up to vague terminology and our assumptions about them would be a terrible precedent to set for all of us.
"No, I'm asking about what we, the people can see. If a report is published with extensive redactions, we cannot say we actually "know" what is in the report."
Leftists ALWAYS Lie. The report is 99% redact free - for members of congress. Grand Jury testimony that effects on-going cases CANNOT be unredacted. You know that and so does Nadler
So if I'm tried for rape, and I did it, I can just say I didn't rape, becuase to me she wanted it, so I wasn't lying? Yea, that's the kind of clear thinking you only learn at a University or second grade. At least second graders have an excuse.
Gillers’s argument is BS. Some newspaper reported that some (more than one) members of a team of over a dozen lawyers said they found AG Barr’s letter lacking. Crist asked Barr if he knew why those unidentifiable people said what they said to the press. If someone asked this question in court, an objection as calling for speculation would be rightly sustained, since Barr could not know what others were thinking. If rephrased to ask what they said their reasons were, Barr still could not answer, because he didn’t know what people the papers were talking about.
A question along the lines of “Has Mueller or anyone on his team ever expressed dissatisfaction with your letter to you”, would not be hard to craft.
IARM: Good one!
I'm pretty much with JCA1 on this one--the "precision" of legal language, and definitions, is at best temporary and provisional, especially in a culture that changes as quickly as ours.
Are blowjobs sex? Define blowjob and define sex. Are handjobs sex? Ditto. Is fisting sex? Ditto. And if so . . . so what?
As for Clinton, of course he lied his sorry boomer ass off. Always has and always will.
Narr
About everything
So if Clinton did not have sexual relations with Lewinsky, what was it, a medical procedure? Free sperm bank pick up with every pizza delivered?
The value of this is simply in identifying the lawprof in question as a hack. Aside from failing to quote the question accurately, and snipping off the great majority of Barr's reply, the lawprof omits to mention the following :
1. Barr is being asked to comment on reports. How could he know what the reports are based on ? He doesn't know. But he is willing to offer what he suspects.
2. Not only does he not know what is bugging some of Mueller's team, because he has only communicated with Mueller himself, he has gone to the trouble of confirming that Mueller has no problem with Barr's summary of the reports findings which was what Crist specifically asked about. Consequently he doesn't know what complaint there might be about his summary of findings. And again, helpfully, he is willing to offer hs suspicions - perhaps the reports are referencing a different concern which he describes.
3. We also know - for sure - that Barr does not regard Mueller as being one of the members of Mueller's team. Barr thinks the members of Mueller's team are Mueller's subordinates. How do we know this ? Because when he is being questioned about the letter, he says it is a bit "snitty' and offers that it was probably written by one of "his staff." ie not Mueller himself. Mueller is not a member of his own staff.
Oh give me a break. The writer of the article says the question started out as to whether Barr knew "why" members of the Mueller team were dissatisfied. Who knows why? Did they get a bad piece of fish at lunch? Did their wife or wives get up on the wrong side of the bed?
Congressional hearings are replete with "questions" that are actually speeches. Most Congress critters couldn't ask a succinct or proper question to save their lives. Kamala Harris, and that clown and former Senator from Minnesota Al Franken come to mind as members of this rogues gallery, but they have a lot of company.
Note that, in regards to Clinton lying about sexual relations, Monica said they did have intercourse. If true, and we have no reason to doubt her (believe all women!), then Clinton lied even by the definition he claimed to be using.
If you look at Clinton's original testimony, then at the physical evidence, then at Clinton's explanation of his testimony, it is clear that his explanation was tailored to fit what was probable, not what was true.
He was following the old adage Admit what you can't deny, deny what you can't admit.
You have to wonder about how Mueller's team has been leaking info to congress the entire time of the investigation.This manufactured outrage schtick seems out of place by democrats trying to contend Barr "lied" during his testimony about what the Mueller team was thinking and how upset they were Barr didn't correctly summarize their horseshit report. How the fuck would he know?
Propaganda 101 is re-categorizing everything.Orwell called it Newspeak. The evil Clinton witches coven re-categorized everything and then declared themselves the winner. They did that from day one. Again, read TWA 800 to see how they used the FBI to do exactly that.
Leftwing meme: Trump's real crimes are all hidden in the redactions.
Got it. How convenient! Mueller should be furious.
C'mon. We've been lectured that all Federal employees involved in these matters possess the utmost integrity and that any questioning of their motives is an attack on our democracy. Are we changing the rules now? Isn't this just about the point where we're assured that Barr is a life long Democrat without a partisan bone in his body?
...to fit what was provable...
@JCA1 at 9:33
Exactly what I was saying....except you say much more precisely.
Thank you.
Blogger Ignorance is Bliss said...
. . .
He was following the old adage Admit what you can't deny, deny what you can't admit.
Clinton knew that he had stained the dress and he still insisted on a DNA test. He was hoping that the DNA was spoiled, so he could continue his lies. What a fucking weasel.
Late to the party and haven’t yet read the comments so apologies if this has already been said:
This kind of stuff, right here, is exactly why people (Giuliani anyone?) refer to these things as “perjury traps”.
Answer too much you’re speculating and it might be wrong, if so — perjury.
Answer specifically the question asked, and nothing more, too cute by half — literally true can still be a lie — perjury.
Answer I don’t know or I don’t recall, we’ll claim you should have recalled —perjury.
The only winning move is not to play...
"No, I'm asking about what we, the people can see. If a report is published with extensive redactions, we cannot say we actually "know" what is in the report."
I still don't understand what that has to do with Barr's supposed lying about Mueller's letter.
So if I'm tried for rape, and I did it, I can just say I didn't rape,
Is it rape? or is it "rape rape"?
Maybe we need to ask Whoopie Goldberg.
I do think he had (and perhaps has) nonpolitical financial relations with the Russians.
I understand he also likes Russian dressing on his tacos.. C'mon Cookle. You know better than this Try to avoid TDS.
I care more about the abuse of an innocent Russian woman who got dragged in by the fury of TDS and is in prison as a result.
Speaking of presidential philandering, one of the reasons I do not believe Stormy Daniels' story of having intercourse with Trump is that she seems like the kind of hooker that would keep the evidence if she bopped a married billionaire.
Clinton knew that he had stained the dress and he still insisted on a DNA test. He was hoping that the DNA was spoiled, so he could continue his lies. What a fucking weasel.
Worse, it was Craig Venter's company that did the DNA test. As a result, Venter did not get a Nobel Prize for the sequencing of the human genome. His other crime was doing it years before the "Human Genome Project" even thought it could do so.
Remember when the press and Hillary TRASHED Linda Tripp.
The East Germans never change.
"I do think he had (and perhaps has) nonpolitical financial relations with the Russians."
This statement is so vague it is meaningless. It could describe some Russian buying a Trump condo at the market price.
We know the Russians had financial relations with the Clintons. They paid Bill hundreds of thousands of dollars for a short speech.
Whoops. Left out a key point.
“They were at an impasse a year ago, and Weissman, etc did some creative lawyering, reinterpreting one unrelated Obstruction statute clause to essentially eliminate the need for proving intent. Early last June, Trump’s Attorneys pushed back with a memo FROM BARR to Rosenstein eviscerating their creative theory. Six months later, Barr is confirmed AG, his interpretation is run through OLC and accepted as DoJ official interpretation, and the investigation is shut down because there never was any collusion and with that interpretation, absent a personal interview and consequent perjury trap, they weren’t going to prove Obstruction.”
Six months before he is confirmed as AG, Barr, presumably aided by several high priced associates, drafts that opinion memo addressing the creative interpretation of the one Obstruction of Justice statute clause being pushed by the Mueller prosecutors. He gives it to the Trump attorneys (who may have asked for it, or he may have volunteered it) who give it directly to DAG Rosenstein, completely cutting Mueller and his people out. And at some point, likely early on, Rosenstein gives the memo to OLC (Office of Legal Counsel), whose job it is, among other things, to interpret statutes.
As I said, the Barr memo eviscerates the Mueller interpretation. I don’t know exactly when it was adopted by OLC, but when Barr talks about running part#2 by other department attorneys, OLC is involved. And, even if Barr’s memo wasn’t persuasive (it was), he was Attorney General by the time that he and Rosenstein reviewed the Mueller Report part#2 facts and determined no Obstruction. And that meant that it was well within his discretion to set that interpretation as his Department’s policy.
There was never any question that was what Barr and (now) Rosenstein would do. The Mueller prosecutors knew that was what was going to happen. They had had the Barr memo from almost the start in early June. By DoJ policy, they had no justification or legitimate reason for including the part#2 dirt in the Mueller Report in the first place. They did it anyway, trying to pick a fight, and maybe to get it out anyway. But Barr pulled the rug out from under them by accurately summarizing: “No Obstruction”.
"Just suggesting that if you want a clear unambiguous lie....you need a clear and UNambigious question."
This. As anyone who's ever seriously discussed science knows. I'm not a lawyer but I'd absolutely shred these hacks.
So, the question the Dems should have asked Barr wasn't if Mueller had issues with Barr's summary, but whether Mueller had ever communicated to Barr that he had issues with Barr's summary.
All those lawyer congressmen, and none of them know how to ask a hostile witness questions.
“There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation.”
So Mueller was upset about the political spin.
Michael McNeil doubted me, saying...
Simple — check a dictionary.
Here's one: Merriam-Webster's:.....
“sexual relations – plural noun
1. (and only 1.): sexual intercourse.”
two can play the definition game! I Call your Merriam-Webester's, and lay down this:
sexual intercourse noun
Definition of sexual intercourse
1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : coitus
2 : intercourse (such as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis
I know why they objected, because they are partisan hacks. Barr was too politie to say it.
conversation n. 3. sexual intercourse
Cook: we cannot say we actually "know" what is in the report.
Tune in next week for another dose of Sophomoronic Sophistry when Cook asks: "are forced labor camps really so bad?"
“All those lawyer congressmen, and none of them know how to ask a hostile witness questions.”
Plenty do know how. But you need to get them in closed hearings to see it. Plenty of former prosecutors in Congress. For example, several times former Rep Trey Gowdy (aka “Roosterhead”) was shown on Forensic Files discussing cases that he was prosecuting (and winning) using forensic information. A fairly standard route to Congress is prosecutor to DA to Congress (sometimes via state AG, as is the case for CA Sen Harris, who is now running for President).
Paul Sperry
@paulsperry_
11h11 hours ago
Sshh, hear that? It's the deafening silence of Barack Obama,who's suddenly gone to ground as #SpyGate scandal draws nearer & calls for him to be questioned under oath grow. No US speaking events, appearances.Organizing for Action(OFA) quietly removed from his website.Fewer Tweets
If a prosecutor investigates me for 2 years and declines to file charges, what difference do the redactions make one way or the other? Cook and his fellow Marxists are being disingenuous, as usual.
gilbar @ 7:45: “...Oh, and they asked him if he'd ever been alone in a room with her; and he said: "No"
This was an out and out lie.”
But...but...as he answered he was imagining that the coat closet where he was “alone” with her, was not in fact a “room.” I mean, really, have you ever seen a real estate listing where a closet is counted as a room?!?
And, for extra points, WJC was thinking also of the profound metaphysical depths of the meaning of “alone.” How can you be “alone” when you are in fact with somebody else, somebody who is very very carefully not-having “sexual relations” with you?
But you need to get them in closed hearings to see it.
TV cameras shut down the frontal cortex of politicians making them look like idiots.
Gowdy, on the other hand, never accomplished much in spite of looking good.
Howard said...
An example of lying and a balanced budget.
Howard unintentionally underlines the point of the post.
Newt Gingrich balanced the budget. Bill Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming to that result.
But stupid people like their lies.
Good to see some others know the ("our"?) TWA800 and Butina stories.
Narr
And yes, the curious case of the dog who isn't barking . . .
"I remember reading stories in the media some years back that teen girls were engaging in all sorts of sexual activity, notably, oral sex, but were not having intercourse so they could say or believe they had not "had sex.""
My brother walked in on a "rainbow party" in his rec room when he came home early from work. This was about twenty years ago when his son was in HS. Seems each girl wears a different color of lipstick and serially blow each guy leaving a "rainbow" on their dicks. I believe like strippers, it's about power over men, not about "I'm still a virgin".
The gist of this post is that like DJT, you cannot fool Bill Barr with words used to fool a listener. That verbal alacrity makes them both armed and dangerous opponents.
I just hope Inga doesn't discover that Barr is a Russian surname, originating in Renfrewshire, a small shire not far from Leningrad.
I believe like strippers, it's about power over men, not about "I'm still a virgin".
No kidding. The very worst part about working for Lt Gov Hobby in Austin was dragging ourselves over to the Yellow Rose after work to be exploited by the strippers. Every night. Porchia and Raven were my two tormentors. I still have flashbacks.
It depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
How can you tell when a Democrat is lying...........?
Just another example of how scared of Barr the Democrats are. I am not convinced that Barr will do anything about this attempted coup, but they are.
I was watching a great BBC drama last week, Line of Duty (I highly recommend it- it is on Acorn which is accessed through Prime Video streaming). There is an interrogation in which the interrogator is forced to define what is meant by "sexual relations". I thought of Bill Clinton.
Following the failed Gunpowder Plot to blow up Parliament and King James I in 1603, the perpetrators and many of their co-conspirators were rounded up and tried. The key issue in the trial of the co-conspirators was equivocation. The Catholic Church had approved of the use of equivocation by English Catholics as a means of lying without committing a sin.
Equivocation was used by Henry Garnet, a Jesuit priest who had given confession to several of the plotters used equivocation as his defense to charges of treason stemming from his association with the plotters. Garnet was found guilt, hanged until almost dead, disemboweled and then drawn and quartered.
Following the trials of the Gunpowder plot conspirators, English courts changed the oath one swore when giving testimony from swearing to tell the truth, to swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Shakespeare mentions equivocation in the graveyard scene of Hamlet and more extensively in the Porter scene of Macbeth which also includes the first Knock, Knock joke.
Bill Clinton was simply using the Catholic approved technique of equivocation is saying he had not had sex or been alone with that woman, Monica Lewinsky
I would note that the "evidence" used in the article to suggest that Barr truthfully lied does not back it up. The question at issue, asked by Charlie Crist on April 9, was
whether Barr knew why “members of the Special Counsel’s team” were publicly reported to be saying that Barr’s March 24 summary of Robert Mueller’s report “does not adequately or accurately, necessarily, portray the report’s findings.” Barr replied (in part, according to the article, which brings up concerns with what was omitted by the author) “No, I don’t.” The author asserts that Barr relied on his not having communicated directly with the Special Counsel's team to say that he didn't know, and suggests that he in fact was told why by Mueller himself.
Yet the material cited to show this never indicates that Mueller's March 27th letter ever explained why either Mueller or his team thought Barr's summary did not properly capture their findings:
We later learned that in a March 27 letter Mueller had complained to Barr that the March 24 summary "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions…. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation.”
This language does not provide any insight whatsoever as to why the team was unhappy (and given both the nature of the people who made up the team and the fact that the full redacted report was released, I'm not sure I particularly care why they were unhappy with the summary). Moreover, Barr did not simply end with the denial - he went on to say "I think — I think — I suspect that they probably wanted more put out, but in my view, I was not interested in putting out summaries or trying to summarize, because I think any summary, regardless of who prepares it, not only runs the risk of, you know, being underinclusive or overinclusive, but also, you know, would trigger a lot of discussion and analysis that really should await everything coming out at once." He actually gave the best answer to the question that was within his knowledge (and I'm not sure I have seen even today anything that actually says why any team member was upset).
gilbar said...
Michael McNeil doubted me, saying...
Simple — check a dictionary.
Here's one: Merriam-Webster's:.....
“sexual relations – plural noun
1. (and only 1.): sexual intercourse.”
"two can play the definition game! I Call your Merriam-Webester's, and lay down this:
sexual intercourse noun
Definition of sexual intercourse
1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : coitus
2 : intercourse (such as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis"
You guys have lead sheltered lives. Question, if a woman is fellating you, are you having sex? If a naked lady is sitting on your face, are you having sex? If your mother's, wife's or daughter's face is impaled on a stranger's penis in a parking lot, are they having sex? Same questions go for hand jobs. I don't need dictionaries to tell me when I'm engaged in sex or not.
This was just all nonsense. Barr used Mueller's own fucking sentences in that conclusions document- he literally copied them from Mueller's own damned report. Anyone with a three digit IQ would be mystified by complaints, from the people who wrote those sentences, that the summary was inadequate. Barr even asked Mueller to explain how the summary was wrong, and Mueller didn't actually have an answer. That Barr isn't a mind reader seems to be sufficient for low IQ Dems to charge him with perjury.
Literally never means literally.
"Honey, I saw you in a parked car with you good looking colleague. Do I need to worry that you are having extramarital sex?"
"No, Love, I was just giving him a blowjob.'
Yancey
That Barr isn't a mind reader seems to be sufficient for low IQ Dems to charge him with perjury.
The calculating corrupt democrats know what they are doing. They are not stupid, they are corrupt.
I don't need dictionaries to tell me when I'm engaged in sex or not.
Are you a woman? Because I don't think you understand what blowjobs are really about.
Xmas wrote:
"Barr really screwed up everyone's plans by releasing almost the entire report. I bet they were expecting Barr to redact a lot more of the report."
This might be the case, but I think the real miscalculation of Mueller and Weissman is that they didn't expect Barr and Rosenstein to take Volume II, read it, and explicitly state that the theories described didn't amount to obstruction, even if Trump wasn't the Executive. And Mueller, because he refused to actually do the job he was hired to do, had no real coherent reply to this- Mueller had literally passed that job back to Barr.
In short, Mueller and Weissman both know that Trump wasn't guilty of obstruction- that is why they didn't recommend charging him, but they tried to have their cake and eat it too, and Barr shut that down by explicitly making the prosecutorial decision they refused to make themselves.
Barr really had to write something given Mueller's abdication regarding obstruction. If he had to do it all over again, I'm sure Barr would've just held onto the report until it could be redacted and then released it publicly with an even shorter cover letter that only addressed the DOJ's position on obstruction, which Mueller failed to adequately address.
First we had collusion, which was not collusion.
Then we had obstruction, which was not obstruction.
Now we're having perjury, which is not perjury.
I suppose next is tax fraud, which is not tax fraud.
In the end we'll hear all this smoke can only prove fire.
If he had to do it all over again, I'm sure Barr would've just held onto the report until it could be redacted and then released it publicly
Nope. Mueller's team likely thought that was exactly what he'd do.
Then they could leak that the obstruction issue has been "handed to Congress" and if Barr tried to make a ruling, they'd scream "interference" and even more evidence of "Trump's obstruction".
Blogger gilbar said...
Kay said...
I was pretty young when the whole Clinton thing went down. As a kid, I didn’t think “oral sex” was the same as “having sex,”
ah but! they didn't ask Clinton if he was "having sex", they asked him if he was having "sexual relations" with Monica. Hard to see how cumming all over someone's face and breasts isn't "sexual relations".
Actually, they handed Clinton a written document that explicitly defined what the term "sexual relations" meant, had him read it, and then referenced the document when asking the question.
Clinton flat out lied. The author of the article quoted by Althouse is, in actual fact, guilty of lying by leaving that out, and, but excluding this evidence, dishonestly playing down Clinton's dishonesty.
So, how weak is the "Barr lied" case? It's so weak that its supporters think it's not wirth making the case without themselves lying.
The false claim that Barr lied is refuted by the fact Mueller was given a chance to read Barr's remarks he had written to fulfill is statutory requirement to notify Congress the Special Counsels Report was complete. Mueller declined. Upon the letter from Mueller, voicing concern, a concern that the summary Mueller had in his report was not used, Mueller admitted the remarks were accurate and NOT misleading. So when Barr was asked, he had confirmation from Mueller there was no concern about Barrs remarks, just the fact Barr did not use the Summary Mueller provided.
I'll again state that Clinton at a minimum tried to deceive and may have outright lied depending on the wording of the questions. Having said that, I find it interesting that a number of typically small government types seem to have no problem (and may actually be cheerleading) the state criminally prosecuting people based on answers to vague questions open to multiple interpretations. Whether it's Clinton, Trump, or anyone else, if the state wants to bring a perjury charge, they better have damn well have asked extremely pointed questions with virtually no wiggle room for interpretation.
Fancy sex toys from Japan with batteries?
Link?
Q. Do you have any bank accounts in Swiss banks, Mr. Bronston?
A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever?
A. The company had an account there for about six months, in Zürich.
Q. Have you any nominees who have bank accounts in Swiss banks?
A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever?
A. No, sir.
Did the witness lie (in the sense required for a perjury conviction) by evading the second question? No, said the Supreme Court in Bronston vs. US.
A 3-way with You, Noah Webster and your lawyer and you're all set
So how is the friendship between Barr and Mueller doing at this point?
Rather than consider a ridiculous question regarding a letter that disputed what the "Mueller Report" officially said, it's easier to pretend AG Barr lied.
Or, more specifically, why does a letter that disputes the official report count for jack shit?
The lefties and LLR's are lying and screaming louder and louder and louder while getting their judicial minions to rule incorrectly to toss more fodder into the fray because they clearly truly believe the Barr and his team are going to expose what the obamites have been up to not just in terms of their 2016 hillary/Trump corrupt investigations, but also the inevitable extension of that conversation to the much longer corrupt spying activities of the govt.
I hope Barr and his team have adequate security details.
Trump as well.
Donald J. Trump
Verified account @realDonaldTrump
May 22
....Democrat leadership is tearing the United States apart, but I will continue to set records for the American People – and Nancy, thank you so much for your prayers, I know you truly mean it!
He's a war lock and should be planned for his uncountable many manufactured, narrated, and perceived crimes against humanity.
That said, Obama spied, Clinton colluded, Biden obstructed, DNC denied, and the mainstream press took progressive liberties with projection, reporting, and cover-ups.
“In short, Mueller and Weissman both know that Trump wasn't guilty of obstruction- that is why they didn't recommend charging him, but they tried to have their cake and eat it too, and Barr shut that down by explicitly making the prosecutorial decision they refused to make themselves.”
They couldn’t.charge Trump with Obstruction because they didn’t have a prayer of proving the Mens Rea (intent) element, even ignoring that these were executive actions taken under his Article II powers. They knew that their aggressive Obstruction statute interpretation was a non starter, because they, no doubt, had read Barr’s June 2018 memo to Rosenstein. Since Barr was now AG, they knew that their interpretation was toast. So why did they disclose that information in their report? I think because it gets their dirt on Trump out into the public.
why did they disclose that information in their report? I think because it gets their dirt on Trump out into the public.
Volume II was a scream of pain from Weissmann and friends that they could not get anything on Trump.
The question Barr was asked this (paraphrased): "do you know why members of the special counsel's team were publicly reported to have said ..." Now how the hell would Barr know the motives of those who did the publicly reporting? His answer was "No I don't. " And that answer is absolutely true.
Clinton didn't have intercourse with Lewinsky, ergo they didn't have “sexual relations.”
Yeah. I'll try that excuse with my wife. Let you know how it turns out.
JCA1 said...
"Obviously, its not up to the questioner to list every possible sex act, to get Clinton to say "yes". Sexual Relations covers pretty much everything."
Actually, that's exactly what he should do if that is the crux of the case he is deposing a witness on (particularly if that witness also happens to be the sitting President of the United States).
That is exactly what they DID do. In writing.. In a document they gave to Clinton, and had him read.
Then asked if he'd had sexual relations as defined by that document.
That's why Clinton had to quibble about "what 'is' is", because "Bfs aren't sex" was legally foreclosed for him by the document Jone's attorneys gave him
We've gone from fake but accurate to accurate but fake.
"Actually, that's exactly what he should do if that is the crux of the case he is deposing a witness on (particularly if that witness also happens to be the sitting President of the United States)."
Clinton was found guilty of perjury - so no, the prosecutor didn't have to do that.
If you were to poll the general populace on whether a blowy counts as "sex" (apropo of nothing), I suspect you'd get an overwhelming number of people who would say yes. But I could be wrong.
Don't know about the general populace, but my wife was pretty clear on the subject.
Sadly there are calls to impeach Barr.
I for one want to thank Bill Clinton, since a blow job has now become the gesture for “Thanks but no thanks.” It’s not so bad.
So did those Russian hookers pee on the bed where Obama had slept or not?
To coin a phrase, lawyers gonna lawyer. And it sounds even better if you pronounce lawyer exactly like the word liar.
So Barr gets a letter from Mueller saying he and his team feel the summary doesn't accurately reflect the entirety of team's work and the investigation. Barr then meets with Mueller personally to address this, presumably saying a summary by definition has to leave out some details, and in this instance the most important facts is that your team did not find sufficient evidence to pursue any criminal case, which is why I stressed that in my summary. Don't worry though we will be releasing almost all of your report sans some redactions in the coming weeks, so that should hopefully clear this up. Then a week later he gets a broad and vague question like, "Do you know why some members of the team are reportedly unhappy with your summary?" Which members? Why are they they unhappy? Are they complaining about something procedural? Are they complaining about the conclusions of the summary? Is this referring to the matter that was already settled or something new? These are all things he doesn't know. So he correctly responds, rather than guessing or speculating, "No I am not aware." And now they want to call that lying. Seems a bit of a stretch.
meanwhile dean cain and kristy swanson, get death threats for enacting the strzok/page text messages, also they are charging for a publication, that is already available on line,
sexual (adj.)
1650s, "of or pertaining to the fact of being male or female," from Late Latin sexualis "relating to sex," from Latin sexus (see sex (n.)). Meaning "pertaining to copulation or generation" is from 1766; sexual intercourse attested by 1771; sexual orientation by 1967; sexual harassment by 1975. Sexual revolution attested by 1962. Sexual politics is from 1970. Related: Sexually.
relation (n.)
late 14c., "connection, correspondence;" also "act of telling," from Anglo-French relacioun, Old French relacion "report, connection" (14c.), from Latin relationem (nominative relatio) "a bringing back, restoring; a report, proposition," from relatus (see relate). Meaning "person related by blood or marriage" first attested c. 1500. Stand-alone phrase no relation "not in the same family" is attested by 1930.
FFS, if you're on the Judiciary Committee, learn to ask better questions. If you want to know if Barr knows why Mueller is unhappy with his letter ask that, don't ask about his 'team'. Barr had spoken to Mueller, and knew that he didn't have a problem with the accurasy of his letter, only how the MEDIA had interpreted it. He likely had NO idea what Mueller's TEAM thought about anything at all.
FYI, this article is exactly why people hate lawyers - always turning the rules to meet their needs. Never just following the rules. Miserable leaches on society.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा