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

The attorney general’s comment later in the May 1 hearing that he thought the Mueller letter “was probably written by one of his staff people”

The AG said on April 20th he hadn't received any communication from Mueller, but that's a lie because of at least two letters he received from Mueller and the SC Office.

Now, the AG suddenly remembers just one -but not both- letters that were sent to him after he misrepresented Mueller's report, and you expect us to believe that it was a convoluted misunderstanding of a straightforward question, ostensibly because Barr is too mentally deficient to answer questions honestly?
 
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.

So you want to know about the pursuit of answering why Manafort shared polling data with Russia, but not the actual reasons why Manafort shared polling data with Russia?
 
All aboard the HOPE train!

Well, the problem is that you are being wilfully ignorant of everything stacked against you; which is by design.

What you're trying to do is lay the groundwork for another rebrand, once this Trump shitshow finally comes off the rails.

That's why you won't answer for why these guys did what they did; doing so would be a tacit admission that your judgment is so poor, you got hoodwinked into defending this shit.
 
SO! still waiting for the link to where Mueller disputed what Barr stated "after the fact".

All Barr said, after lying to the Senate, was that he and Mueller talked.

That doesn't explain why Barr lied and said he and Mueller hadn't spoken back when he testified on April 20th.

So why did Barr lie on April 20th if he had talked with Mueller?
 
Well, the problem is that you are being wilfully ignorant of everything stacked against you; which is by design.

What you're trying to do is lay the groundwork for another rebrand, once this Trump shitshow finally comes off the rails.

That's why you won't answer for why these guys did what they did; doing so would be a tacit admission that your judgment is so poor, you got hoodwinked into defending this shit.

I hope you don't have far to fall off your barstool when none of this happens
 
SO! still waiting for the link to where Mueller disputed what Barr stated "after the fact".

You're trying to make this about something it's not.

It's not about whether or not Mueller and Barr spoke, it's about why Barr lied and said they didn't back when he testified on April 20th, before Mueller's 3/27 letter was made public?

Why did Barr lie on 4/20?
 
https://www.lawfareblog.com/there-pe...e-against-barr

Please read the link. What does the last sentence say?

You are avoiding the timeline, bro!

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

Why didn't Barr tell the truth on 4/20?

Why on 4/24, only after Mueller's 3/27 letter was released, does Barr suddenly remember a conversation he had with Mueller, after saying on 4/20 that he had not?
 
YOU CANT READ!

You can't!

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...no credibility.
 
All Barr said, after lying to the Senate, was that he and Mueller talked.

That doesn't explain why Barr lied and said he and Mueller hadn't spoken back when he testified on April 20th.

So why did Barr lie on April 20th if he had talked with Mueller?

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?
 
Last edited:
You can't!

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...no credibility.

You forgot to add....In my opinion
 
I hope you don't have far to fall off your barstool when none of this happens

Well, you all did it once already just 10 years ago...and you're not very clever or imaginative people, so I expect you to run the same play again.

Just like the teabags with Bush the Dumber, you'll just come up with another gimmick to distance yourself from Trump in retrospect; whether it's a "No true Scotsman" defense or you'll just create a brand new ID to argue the same stupid points, but with re-established credibility.
 
Well, you all did it once already just 10 years ago...and you're not very clever or imaginative people, so I expect you to run the same play again.

Just like the teabags with Bush the Dumber, you'll just come up with another gimmick to distance yourself from Trump in retrospect; whether it's a "No true Scotsman" defense or you'll just create a brand new ID to argue the same stupid points, but with re-established credibility.

all aboard the HOPE train!
 
Back
Top