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

[Southern Chicken]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPE.

As Mueller says in his letter: “The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on March 25. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigation.”




Nope. That's a lie. Van Hollen asked a very clear, direct question. Here's the exchange:

Van Hollen: “Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?”

Barr: “I don’t know whether Mueller supported my conclusion.”

We do know because Mueller says so: "The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions."

Nothing about the media there...just whether or not Mueller supported Barr's conclusion.

We know Mueller didn't because of the 3/24 and 3/27 letters.

Letters that Barr wasn't counting on the public knowing about, isn't that right?

POST THE LINK that MUELLER DISPUTED THE CONVERSATION. He had a chance to by now. Also Why haven't anyone charged Barr with Perjury? LINK US UP

 

[LV426]

IF there is proof that he lied, as you state, it should be easy to proceed with perjury, correct?

Just so we're clear, your defense of Barr lying to the Senate on 4/20 is that he couldn't have lied because no one has charged him with perjury yet.

Am I understanding your position?

 

[LV426]

Why do you think no one has issued a perjury investigation into this?

Because they're about to hold him in contempt.

 

[Southern Chicken]

Again, nothing Congress does will answer why Barr lied before the Senate.

So why did he lie on 4/20?

No but it will show guilt. Apparently he is not guilty of lying as you keep making these asinine assertions.

 

[Southern Chicken]

Because they're about to hold him in contempt.

So they cant investigate two charges on him? Another asinine assertion.

 

[LV426]

POST THE LINK that MUELLER DISPUTED THE CONVERSATION.

Here we go again, with you searching for a way out of this debate....

I never disputed that Barr and Mueller spoke. In fact, it's at the heart of the lying charge. Barr lied and said he never spoke with Mueller about whether Mueller agreed with his summary, and then four days later, Barr miraculously remembers he had a conversation with Mueller about it.

So if he did talk with Mueller about it, why did he tell Van Hollen that he didn't know if Mueller agreed with him?

What I'm talking about is Barr lying about that conversation when asked on 4/20, and then "recalling" it four days later, after news of Mueller's letters leaked.

So why did Barr lie about a conversation he had with Mueller when asked about it by Senator Van Hollen?

 

[Southern Chicken]

Just so we're clear, your defense of Barr lying to the Senate on 4/20 is that he couldn't have lied because no one has charged him with perjury yet.

Am I understanding your position?

My position is that you don't know what you're talking about... If it was so then the House reps would have proceeded with perjury along with contempt.

 

[LV426]

No but it will show guilt.

What will "show guilt"?

Are you falling back on being inarticulate because you realize your position is untenable?

That's sophistry and bad faith.

What a fucking joke.

 

[Southern Chicken]

Here we go again, with you searching for a way out of this debate....

I never disputed that Barr and Mueller spoke. In fact, it's at the heart of the lying charge. Barr lied and said he never spoke with Mueller about whether Mueller agreed with his summary, and then four days later, Barr miraculously remembers he had a conversation with Mueller about it.

So if he did talk with Mueller about it, why did he tell Van Hollen that he didn't know if Mueller agreed with him?

What I'm talking about is Barr lying about that conversation when asked on 4/20, and then "recalling" it four days later, after news of Mueller's letters leaked.

So why did Barr lie about a conversation he had with Mueller when asked about it by Senator Van Hollen?

No one in Congress has established this to be true. There is exactly zero perjury investigations of Barr.

 

[LV426]

Apparently he is not guilty of lying as you keep making these asinine assertions.

But he did lie...

Van Hollen: “Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?”

Barr: “I don’t know whether Mueller supported my conclusion.”

We do know because Mueller says so: "The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions."

 

[Southern Chicken]

What will "show guilt"?

Are you falling back on being inarticulate because you realize your position is untenable?

That's sophistry and bad faith.

What a fucking joke.

You're being obtuse

 

[LV426]

So they cant investigate two charges on him? Another asinine assertion.

So...your defense of Barr lying to protect Trump is that he's not guilty because no one has brought him up on charges yet?

Are you sure that is your defense?

 

[Southern Chicken]

But he did lie...

Van Hollen: “Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?”

Barr: “I don’t know whether Mueller supported my conclusion.”

We do know because Mueller says so: "The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions."

No one in Congress has established this to be true. There is exactly zero perjury investigations of Barr.

 

[LV426]

My position is that you don't know what you're talking about

Hold on, though, because that is the argument you are making...

An absence of charges means Barr didn't lie.

But you can still lie and not be criminally charged.

Barr lied on April 20th. WHY?

 

[LV426]

If it was so then the House reps would have proceeded with perjury along with contempt.

Why? He lied before the Senate, not the House.

 

[Southern Chicken]

So...your defense of Barr lying to protect Trump is that he's not guilty because no one has brought him up on charges yet?

Are you sure that is your defense?

Barr didn't lie. Again, No one in Congress has established this to be true. There is exactly zero perjury investigations of Barr.

 

[Southern Chicken]

Why? He lied before the Senate, not the House.

No one in Congress has established this to be true. There is exactly zero perjury investigations of Barr.

 

[Micawber]

If it was so then the House reps would have proceeded with perjury along with contempt.

So charging is the dispositive part. Gotcha.

 

[LV426]

No one in Congress has established this to be true

Established what to be true?

This is you sliding into the handicap of in-articulation because you can't make a coherent argument here in defense of Barr lying to the Senate.

Why did Barr tell Van Hollen he didn't know if Mueller agreed with his conclusions when Barr received two letters from Mueller that dispute Barr's conclusions of Mueller's report?

There is exactly zero perjury investigations of Barr.

So far...

Also, Barr lied before the Senate, not the House.

 

[Earl]

Nervous Nancy (the wicked witch of the West) is between a rock and a hard place.

If she impeaches, the radical Democrat Socialists will suffer a defeat at the polls in 2020 of Biblical proportions.

If she doesn't impeach, the radical Democrat Socialists will have a civil war of Biblical proportions.

She will crack from the stress caused by the far left loons. She appears to have already cracked.