Nancy has been waiting because she wants more than just impeachment-JAIL!!

LV426 said:
Well, you like to think of yourself as a smart, savvy guy with good instincts and sound judgment, right?

So put those instincts and judgment to work and think of a reason why Manafort, as campaign chair, would share polling data for PA, WI, MI, and MN with Russian spies.
Click to expand...

Mueller needs to testify on his extent for the pursuit of the reasons why for clarity. Neither you or I have the full details on this and I wont join you in guessing.
 
Southern Chicken said:
I didnt interview Manafort. Maybe the person that interviewed Manafort should testify. He can also testify as to why he didn't clarify a motive.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that you know the reason for Manafort sharing polling data with Russia, but don't want to admit it because it would be an admission that Trump's team did collude with Russia, thus blowing your "no collusion" narrative out of the water.

And if "no collusion" is blown out of the water, the rest of the defense of Trump crumbles like a house of cards.
 
LV426 said:
It seems to me that you know the reason for Manafort sharing polling data with Russia, but don't want to admit it because it would be an admission that Trump's team did collude with Russia, thus blowing your "no collusion" narrative out of the water.
Click to expand...

All aboard the HOPE train!
 
Southern Chicken said:
14% of the House believes you.
Click to expand...

You keep retreating to this, as if it has anything to do with why Paul Manafort did what he did.

Why did he do what he did, anyway? Why did Paul Manafort share polling data with Russian spies for months when he was Trump's campaign chair?

That question isn't going to go away.
 
LV426 said:
This link of yours is after the fact that Barr had already lied before the Senate in April.

Barr got two letters from Mueller, one of those letters has been made public.

Before this link of yours, and before Barr retconned what happened, Barr lied to the Senate. He told the Senate on April 20th that he hadn't received any communication from Mueller. That was untrue. It was only after that exchange before the Senate did this new defense of yours emerge.
Click to expand...

SO! still waiting for the link to where Mueller disputed what Barr stated "after the fact".
 
Southern Chicken said:
Mueller didn't dispute that the conversation happened.
Click to expand...

Right, Barr only said that he and Mueller had a conversation after Mueller released his letter from 3/27, and after Barr lied on April 20th.

So did Barr just forget he had a conversation with Mueller before April 20th, or is it more likely that he's bullshitting and obfuscating?
 
Southern Chicken said:
Mueller didn't dispute that the conversation happened.
Click to expand...

So then did Barr just forget about this conversation when he was testifying before the Senate on April 20th?

If he forgot, then he is unfit to serve as AG and need to be removed from office; his health is deteriorating if he can't recall a conversation about the very topic at hand.
 
Southern Chicken said:
Only 14% of the members of the house supports the above as a reason for impeachment.
Click to expand...

That's your fallback mantra...that so long as that % stays there, you don't think you have to answer the "why" questions.

So it's a cop-out move on your part; an act of cowardice.

Not sure why you won't just admit the reason Manafort shared data with Russia was to help Trump win, thus proving collusion.
 
LV426 said:
So then did Barr just forget about this conversation when he was testifying before the Senate on April 20th?

If he forgot, then he is unfit to serve as AG and need to be removed from office; his health is deteriorating if he can't recall a conversation about the very topic at hand.
Click to expand...

SO! still waiting for the link to where Mueller disputed what Barr stated "after the fact". LINK UP

Link without your fantasy,please!
 
LV426 said:
Bullshit, because the letter's source is at the top margin, and Mueller signed the letter himself.

Barr even acknowledged receipt of that letter on March 28th, so why did he not mention it when asked on April 20th?
Click to expand...

SO! still waiting for the link to where Mueller disputed what Barr stated "after the fact". LINK US up
 
Southern Chicken said:
"The letter’s a bit snitty, and I think it was probably written by one of his staff people," he told the Judiciary panel
Click to expand...

It's funny the date Barr said this...April 24th...4 days after he said during his Senate testimony that he didn't receive any communication from Mueller.

So it appears that Barr is retconning.

3/27: Mueller sends letter to Barr, expressing concern about Barr's misinterpretation and misrepresentation.

4/20: Barr testifies before the Senate that Mueller never communicated concerns with him

4/24: Barr suddenly remembers a conversation he had with Mueller

So Barr perjured himself on 4/20, didn't he?

So since he lied on 4/20, why would he be telling the truth about anything else?
 
LV426 said:
It's funny the date Barr said this...April 24th...4 days after he said during his Senate testimony that he didn't receive any communication from Mueller.

So it appears that Barr is retconning.

3/27: Mueller sends letter to Barr, expressing concern about Barr's misinterpretation and misrepresentation.

4/20: Barr testifies before the Senate that Mueller never communicated concerns with him

4/24: Barr suddenly remembers a conversation he had with Mueller

So Barr perjured himself on 4/20, didn't he?

So since he lied on 4/20, why would he be telling the truth about anything else?
Click to expand...


https://www.lawfareblog.com/there-pe...e-against-barr

Please read the link. What does the last sentence say?
 
Southern Chicken said:
Please read the link. What does the last sentence say?
Click to expand...

Here's the last sentence:

None of this is to exonerate Barr. His testimony was deeply misleading. It was, as Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse commented on May 1, “masterful hairsplitting.” It was unbefitting the office of the attorney general. It just probably wasn’t criminal.

So, it says Barr is misleading, unbefitting of the office, and thus lacks credibility.

So that's your defense...Barr's not credible?

Not sure that's a strong defense to make here.
 
Southern Chicken said:
Then we have
"Barr’s response suggests his defense: He understood Crist to be asking if he knew anything about concerns raised by members of Mueller’s team, not by Mueller himself. And Barr had only heard directly from Mueller."

https://www.lawfareblog.com/there-perjury-case-against-barr

Please read the link. What does the last sentence say?
Click to expand...

Your defense of Barr lying is that...he's not credible, so we shouldn't trust anything he says?

Ummm...OK.
 
LV426 said:
Here's the last sentence:

None of this is to exonerate Barr. His testimony was deeply misleading. It was, as Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse commented on May 1, “masterful hairsplitting.” It was unbefitting the office of the attorney general. It just probably wasn’t criminal.

So, it says Barr is misleading, unbefitting of the office, and thus lacks credibility.

So that's your defense...Barr's not credible?

Not sure that's a strong defense to make here.
Click to expand...

Last sentence states "It just probably wasn’t criminal". Meaning not definitive.
 
Southern Chicken said:
Bottom line I answered your question based on facts.
Click to expand...

No, what you did was try to use Barr's retroactive explanation for lying to the Senate on April 20th as a fact.

There's nothing factual about it; it's Barr trying to cover his ass after getting caught lying to the Senate.

You haven't answered for why he did that?

Nor have you answered for why Manafort shared polling data with Russian spies for months?

Both questions will not be going away any time soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top