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

Southern Chicken said:
No one in Congress has established this to be true.
Click to expand...

Mueller, 3/27: "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."

Van Hollen, 4/20: “Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?”

Barr, 4/20: “I don’t know whether Mueller supported my conclusion.”

Barr lied on 4/20.
 
Southern Chicken said:
Barr didn't lie.
Click to expand...

Yes he did:

Mueller, 3/27: "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."

Van Hollen, 4/20: “Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?”

Barr, 4/20: “I don’t know whether Mueller supported my conclusion.”
 
Southern Chicken said:
Again, No one in Congress has established this to be true.
Click to expand...

Firstly, Barr lied before the Senate, not the House. So it's the Senate that would need to bring up charges of perjury, and who controls the Senate?

Secondly, plenty of Democrats in Congress have established this to be true, including Senator Van Hollen who asked Barr that question.

Thirdly, the video is clear; Barr is asked if Mueller supports his conclusions, and Barr says he didn't know.

But Barr did know, because he got two letters from Mueller, and then Barr "recalled" he did speak with Mueller the same day news of Mueller's letters leaks to the media.

So unanswered is why Barr lied to the Senate on 4/20? Is it because he didn't think anyone would find out about Mueller's two letters?
 
LV426 said:
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?
Click to expand...


No one in Congress has Substantiate this to be a lie. There is exactly zero perjury investigations of Barr. You're still on that HOPE train.
 
Hope and change, we hoped and thanks to the Grand Architect of the Universe, we received change,,,for the better this time.

MAGA
 
Southern Chicken said:
No one in Congress has Substantiate this to be a lie.
Click to expand...

1. Nice goalpost shift.

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

3. Van Hollen, and other Democratic Senators, have accused Barr of lying before the Senate on 4/20 over this very subject.

4. It's substantiated in Mueller's letter and Barr's lies about getting that letter:

Mueller, 3/27: "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."

Van Hollen, 4/20: “Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?”

Barr, 4/20: “I don’t know whether Mueller supported my conclusion.”


There is exactly zero perjury investigations of Barr.
Click to expand...

That's because Barr lied before the Senate, not the House, and McConnell controls the Senate.

So now you're also making the case that Conservatives protect liars in the Senate, and that's emblematic of Conservative governance.
 
LV426 said:
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?



So far...

Also, Barr lied before the Senate, not the House.
Click to expand...


Last time
If Barr answered the question with yes Mueller agreed with my conclusion(no collusion no obstruction of justice) then that is a conclusion to the Mueller report. If Barr said that Mueller didn't agree with my conclusion(no collusion no obstruction of justice) then that is a conclusion to the Mueller report. Mueller didn't have a conclusion one way or the other. If Barr answer that Mueller made a conclusion via letter or on the phone then the report is in error. As you have stated the OLC opinion had restrictions.
 
LV426 said:
That is not what you said at the beginning, liar.

At the beginning, you said there was no evidence Manafort shared polling data with Russia.

It wasn't until I posted from the Mueller report, that you changed your tune and started saying that it wasn't illegal for Manafort to share polling data with Russians.

Then, when you realized that was you admitting to collusion, you tried to undermine it by pretending that no evidence exists that Russia used the polling data Manafort gave them (that you initially said didn't happen), except that Mueller doesn't say that. What Mueller says is that his ability to gather evidence into what Russia did with the polling data they got from Manafort was limited. That's way different than saying "no evidence exists"...evidence could exist, but Mueller was limited in what he could gather.

It's a distinction you are not making because...as usual...you're a sophist.
Click to expand...

AGAIN, there is NO evidence Manafort shared info with Russia either. He shared it with Kilimnik. Who is Ukrainian.

You are full of shit. You simply are incapable of reading comprehension.
 
LV426 said:
You are the one whose position keeps evolving here as you learn more and more from the Mueller report that sheds light on the bullshit you're repeating here.

You completely changed your position on whether Manafort shared any data at all with Russia.

Then you kept moving the goalposts the worse it looked.

The problem is that you lack all character and ethics, so you will just say whatever you want whenever you want as long as it makes you look good on an anonymous message board.

What a loser.
Click to expand...

Nope, you are either lying or too dumb to read what has been posted.
 
LV426 said:
Of course he did.

Kiliminik is a Putin ally and Russian asset.

Kiliminik is tied to the IRA, per the FBI.






A distinction without difference.

Kiliminik is a Putin ally and assessed by the FBI to have connections to the IRA.

Don't understand why you are making this defense. It's weak sauce.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO... again. Manafort shared with Kilimnik. There is NO evidence that the data went anywhere else. NONE. You even quoted the part of the Mueller report that states that. How dishonest are you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top