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

[LV426]

Another source

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.

When we look at the actual words of this exchange, Barr’s testimony is clearly accurate. And I don’t mean accurate in the hyper-technical, Clintonesque “depends on what the definition of is is” sense. I mean straightforward, unguarded, and evincing a willingness to volunteer information beyond what the question sought.


Crist did not ask a general question about Mueller’s reaction to Barr’s letter; he asked a specific question about the reaction of Mueller’s “team” to the Barr letter’s description of “the report’s findings.” Regarding the March 24 letter’s rendering of this bottom line — namely, Russia meddled, Trump did not collude, and Mueller failed to resolve the obstruction question — Barr said he did not know what Mueller’s staff was complaining about.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/the-big-lie-that-barr-lied/

You're a piece of shit.

You keep trying to drag the argument away from Barr's lies on April 20th.

Everything Barr says after April 20th is a retcon because the letter Mueller sent to him on 3/27 was released after Barr's 4/20 testimony.

So before we even get to that, we first need to know why Barr lied and said he and Mueller hadn't communicated back on April 20th when it's clear they had??

 

[LV426]

Another source

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.

When we look at the actual words of this exchange, Barr’s testimony is clearly accurate. And I don’t mean accurate in the hyper-technical, Clintonesque “depends on what the definition of is is” sense. I mean straightforward, unguarded, and evincing a willingness to volunteer information beyond what the question sought.


Crist did not ask a general question about Mueller’s reaction to Barr’s letter; he asked a specific question about the reaction of Mueller’s “team” to the Barr letter’s description of “the report’s findings.” Regarding the March 24 letter’s rendering of this bottom line — namely, Russia meddled, Trump did not collude, and Mueller failed to resolve the obstruction question — Barr said he did not know what Mueller’s staff was complaining about.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/the-big-lie-that-barr-lied/


I AM STILL WAITING FOR THAT LINK! LINK US UP. What are you waiting on?

So...

3/27: Mueller sends letter to Barr
3/28: Barr marks the letter as "received"
4/20: Barr says he and Mueller have never communicated about Barr's summary of Mueller's report
4/24: Barr learns Mueller's 3/27 letter will be made public, and "remembers" a conversation he had with Mueller
5/1: Democrats release Mueller's 3/27 letter

 

[Southern Chicken]

You're a piece of shit.

You keep trying to drag the argument away from Barr's lies on April 20th.

Everything Barr says after April 20th is a retcon because the letter Mueller sent to him on 3/27 was released after Barr's 4/20 testimony.

So before we even get to that, we first need to know why Barr lied and said he and Mueller hadn't communicated back on April 20th when it's clear they had??

"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.

When we look at the actual words of this exchange, Barr’s testimony is clearly accurate. And I don’t mean accurate in the hyper-technical, Clintonesque “depends on what the definition of is is” sense. I mean straightforward, unguarded, and evincing a willingness to volunteer information beyond what the question sought.


Crist did not ask a general question about Mueller’s reaction to Barr’s letter; he asked a specific question about the reaction of Mueller’s “team” to the Barr letter’s description of “the report’s findings.” Regarding the March 24 letter’s rendering of this bottom line — namely, Russia meddled, Trump did not collude, and Mueller failed to resolve the obstruction question — Barr said he did not know what Mueller’s staff was complaining about."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...hat-barr-lied/


I AM STILL WAITING FOR THAT LINK and not your attempt at an ad hominem! LINK US UP. What are you waiting on?

 

[Southern Chicken]

So...

3/27: Mueller sends letter to Barr
3/28: Barr marks the letter as "received"
4/20: Barr says he and Mueller have never communicated about Barr's summary of Mueller's report
4/24: Barr learns Mueller's 3/27 letter will be made public, and "remembers" a conversation he had with Mueller
5/1: Democrats release Mueller's 3/27 letter

Read the transcript about what was asked again

"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.

When we look at the actual words of this exchange, Barr’s testimony is clearly accurate. And I don’t mean accurate in the hyper-technical, Clintonesque “depends on what the definition of is is” sense. I mean straightforward, unguarded, and evincing a willingness to volunteer information beyond what the question sought.


Crist did not ask a general question about Mueller’s reaction to Barr’s letter; he asked a specific question about the reaction of Mueller’s “team” to the Barr letter’s description of “the report’s findings.” Regarding the March 24 letter’s rendering of this bottom line — namely, Russia meddled, Trump did not collude, and Mueller failed to resolve the obstruction question — Barr said he did not know what Mueller’s staff was complaining about."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...hat-barr-lied/

 

[LV426]

You forgot to add....In my opinion

Well, if someone misleads, lies, splits hairs, and conducts themselves in a way un-befitting of their office...is that person still credible to you?

What would it take for them to lose credibility with you?

 

[LV426]

Fantasy that Trump will be removed from office for this.

OK, but Manafort still did it, didn't he?

While he did it, was he or was he not Trump's campaign chairman?

 

[LV426]

Fantasy that Trump will be removed from office for this.

Well, why would Trump be removed for something Paul Manafort did, unless Manafort did it with Trump's knowledge.

Why would the campaign chair have shared polling data with Russia without informing Trump?

 

[LV426]

all aboard the HOPE train!

HOPE is stapling a teabag to your face to convince everyone you suddenly care about debt and deficits after supporting policies that expanded both, to stay relevant.

HOPE is taking your tacky red hat off when it's not convenient to wear anymore, and being allowed to float away in a lifeboat to stay relevant.

HOPE is avoiding questions long enough that people will just forget them.

 

[LV426]

I AM STILL WAITING FOR THAT LINK and not your attempt at an ad hominem! LINK US UP. What are you waiting on?

You're waiting for me to provide you with a link that disproves Barr and Mueller had a conversation?

I'm not arguing they never spoke.

My argument is that Barr lied about speaking with Mueller when he testified on April 20th, and only said they did after it was revealed that Mueller sent Barr two letters.

You won't even touch that.

Instead, you're trying to use the retconned explanation for why Barr lied on April 20th.

So if Barr now says he and Mueller did speak, why did he say on 4/20 that they hadn't?

It was because Barr was counting on people not knowing about those letters, isn't it?

It's OK, you can be honest about it.

 

[LV426]

"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.

When we look at the actual words of this exchange, Barr’s testimony is clearly accurate. And I don’t mean accurate in the hyper-technical, Clintonesque “depends on what the definition of is is” sense. I mean straightforward, unguarded, and evincing a willingness to volunteer information beyond what the question sought.


Crist did not ask a general question about Mueller’s reaction to Barr’s letter; he asked a specific question about the reaction of Mueller’s “team” to the Barr letter’s description of “the report’s findings.” Regarding the March 24 letter’s rendering of this bottom line — namely, Russia meddled, Trump did not collude, and Mueller failed to resolve the obstruction question — Barr said he did not know what Mueller’s staff was complaining about."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...hat-barr-lied/


I AM STILL WAITING FOR THAT LINK and not your attempt at an ad hominem! LINK US UP. What are you waiting on?

Barr is only saying this shit now, after the fact, because he thought that no one would find out about the two letters Mueller sent him back in March.

Thing is, if Barr admits on 4/20 that he received communication from Mueller, then Barr admits to lying when he said no one had complained about the accuracy of his summary.

 

[Southern Chicken]

Well, if someone misleads, lies, splits hairs, and conducts themselves in a way un-befitting of their office...is that person still credible to you?

What would it take for them to lose credibility with you?

It is shocking that a Democrat senator would say this about Barr. Really shocking! We know Democrats wouldn't make such a statement.

 

[Southern Chicken]

Barr is only saying this shit now, after the fact, because he thought that no one would find out about the two letters Mueller sent him back in March.

Thing is, if Barr admits on 4/20 that he received communication from Mueller, then Barr admits to lying when he said no one had complained about the accuracy of his summary.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/mind-reading

 

[LV426]

Read the transcript about what was asked again

"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.

When we look at the actual words of this exchange, Barr’s testimony is clearly accurate. And I don’t mean accurate in the hyper-technical, Clintonesque “depends on what the definition of is is” sense. I mean straightforward, unguarded, and evincing a willingness to volunteer information beyond what the question sought.


Crist did not ask a general question about Mueller’s reaction to Barr’s letter; he asked a specific question about the reaction of Mueller’s “team” to the Barr letter’s description of “the report’s findings.” Regarding the March 24 letter’s rendering of this bottom line — namely, Russia meddled, Trump did not collude, and Mueller failed to resolve the obstruction question — Barr said he did not know what Mueller’s staff was complaining about."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...hat-barr-lied/

All of this is after the fact that barr lied on 4/20!

He lied.

He straight up lied to the Senate.

Now, you're trying to pitch that he suddenly remembered a conversation?

How convenient to remember it after news of Mueller's letters leaked.

Prior to Mueller's letters leaking, Barr's position was that no one from Mueller or his team, had reached out to him about his misrepresentation. It's what he testified to on April 20th.

So why did Barr lie on 4/20 and say no one had communicated complaints to him, when he then admits two weeks later that he had spoken about their concerns?

 

[Southern Chicken]

All of this is after the fact that barr lied on 4/20!

He lied.

He straight up lied to the Senate.

Now, you're trying to pitch that he suddenly remembered a conversation?

How convenient to remember it after news of Mueller's letters leaked.

Prior to Mueller's letters leaking, Barr's position was that no one from Mueller or his team, had reached out to him about his misrepresentation. It's what he testified to on April 20th.

So why did Barr lie on 4/20 and say no one had communicated complaints to him, when he then admits two weeks later that he had spoken about their concerns?

READ THE TRANSCRIPT! No one is supporting your assertion but the media and probably the 14%.

 

[LV426]

It is shocking that a Democrat senator would say this about Barr. Really shocking! We know Democrats wouldn't make such a statement.

LOL!

It's from the blog you quoted, idiot.

Literally, the last sentence of the blog you quoted says all these things about Barr.

What I don't understand is why you think Barr has credibility after posting a blog link expressly saying he doesn't?

Is your strategy to just trip over your own limp dick?

 

[Southern Chicken]

LOL!

It's from the blog you quoted, idiot.

Literally, the last sentence of the blog you quoted says all these things about Barr.

What I don't understand is why you think Barr has credibility after posting a blog link expressly saying he doesn't?

Is your strategy to just trip over your own limp dick?

Repeat the last sentence again. Please stop having that fantasy about my genitals.

"It just probably wasn’t criminal." Means not definitive.

 

[LV426]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/mind-reading

Then explain why Barr said he hadn't communicated with Mueller when he testified on 4/20, but then once news of the letter leaks, suddenly he remembers a conversation?

 

[Getin the ring]

no one is getting impeached, so stop with the silliness.

the democrats are , or might take a calculated risk that starting an impeachment process, that will never get through by the way, that it will provide the optics that their flailing desperation requires going into 2020.

To watcha party cheer for open borders, cheer for killing babies, root for the economy to go sour, root for Trumps progress on trade deals to not work, is maybe the saddest thing we have ever witnessed.

225 electoral votes aint gonna work, don't know who you think you're fooling

 

[Southern Chicken]

Then explain why Barr said he hadn't communicated with Mueller when he testified on 4/20, but then once news of the letter leaks, suddenly he remembers a conversation?

That was explained. You're having a difficult time with it. Read the Transcript I posted until you get it.

 

[LV426]

READ THE TRANSCRIPT! No one is supporting your assertion but the media and probably the 14%.

So...

Barr lied on 4/9 to the Senate, saying he never communicated with Mueller.

News of Mueller's letters leaks on 4/24 hours ahead of Barr's testimony to the House.

Barr says on 4/24 that he had communicated with Mueller.

So on 4/9 in the Senate (not 4/20, my mistake), Barr says he and Mueller never communicated, but then on 4/24 in the House, he says they did.

So...either Barr lied on 4/9 or he lied on 4/24.