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

Southern Chicken said:
Is anything you posted above a conclusion? wow, you are being obtuse!
Click to expand...

Again, Barr was asked if Mueller agreed with Barr's conclusions.

Mueller's March 27th letter says he didn't.

So Barr lied when he said that he didn't know if Mueller supported his conclusions.

Not sure why you are digging your heels in on this; Barr lied to Van Hollen on 4/20.
 
Southern Chicken said:
Barr made a conclusion about the report Mueller didn't correct?
Click to expand...

Right, and Mueller didn't support that conclusion, even sending letters to Barr stating just that.

Barr lied on 4/20 when he said he didn't know if Mueller supported his conclusions.

Barr did know, didn't he? Because Mueller said this on 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.
https://www.npr.org/2019/05/01/7190...ng-concern-about-barr-s-summary-of-his-report

It's OK...I understand why your defense is waning here...you can't make a defense of this given the facts.

That's why you're trying to change everything post-hoc, and are being inconsistent on what you're saying.

You are being obtuse while you accuse me of being obtuse.

Total projection.

Maybe delete this ID and create a new one; your argument has run aground here and there's no getting you back into the sea.
 
Southern Chicken said:
That isn't a conclusion.
Click to expand...

Mueller simply said that Barr's summary was misleading.

Barr lied to the Senate about Mueller saying that.

Only after Mueller's letters were leaked did Barr suddenly change his tune.

To this day, Mueller has not validated or confirmed Barr's conclusions.
 
Southern Chicken said:
Barr made a conclusion about the report Mueller didn't correct?
Click to expand...

Barr's conclusion was bullshit, and Mueller let him have it.

Mueller said this: 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 the morning of March 25
 
no I'm serious, i'd call for more investigations, millions of dollars worth, seriously.
And call in Howard Dean, he'll tell you what it looks like to him, no doubt this could be huuuuuge
 
Getin the ring said:
no I'm serious, i'd call for more investigations, millions of dollars worth, seriously.
And call in Howard Dean, he'll tell you what it looks like to him, no doubt this could be huuuuuge
Click to expand...

Howard Dean is the former governor of Vermont.

John Dean was the guy during Watergate.

Stop smoking meth.
 
LV426 said:
Again, Barr was asked if Mueller agreed with Barr's conclusions.

Mueller's March 27th letter says he didn't.

So Barr lied when he said that he didn't know if Mueller supported his conclusions.

Not sure why you are digging your heels in on this; Barr lied to Van Hollen on 4/20.
Click to expand...

Doesn't say that. We discussed this earlier in this thread.
 
LV426 said:
Barr's conclusion was bullshit, and Mueller let him have it.

Mueller said this: 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 the morning of March 25
Click to expand...

"I said, 'Bob, what’s with the letter? Why don’t you just pick up the phone and call me if there’s an issue?'" Barr said during his testimony before the panel Wednesday.

"And he said that they were concerned about the way the media was playing this and felt that it was important to get out the summaries, which they felt would put their work in proper context and avoid some of the confusion that was emerging," Barr added.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/441655-barr-on-mueller-bob-whats-with-the-letter

Mueller didn't dispute that the conversation. LINK US UP to his statement that he disputed that the conversation happened the way Barr described. LINK US UP!
 
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.

And if "no collusion" is blown out of the water, the rest of the defense of Trump crumbles like a house of cards.
Click to expand...

First, he supposedly shared it with a Ukranian. Who is supposedly 'tied to Russian agents'. Second, there is nothing to show the data was even received, let alone passed on to Russia. Again, evidence matters.
 
Southern Chicken said:
Doesn't say that.
Click to expand...

Yes, it literally does:

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 the morning of March 25.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-robert-muellers-letter-bill-barr


We discussed this earlier in this thread.
Click to expand...

No, you tried to bullshit me, but that bullshit obfuscation was uncovered.

So you've jumped quite a few times between excuses for why Barr lied to the Senate on April 20th, but you still are not answering why Barr had to lie, and why you had to make myriad excuses for lying.
 
Southern Chicken said:
"I said, 'Bob, what’s with the letter? Why don’t you just pick up the phone and call me if there’s an issue?'"
Click to expand...

Weird, because on April 20th, Barr said he didn't know if Mueller agreed with his conclusions. Sure seems like Barr knew he didn't back on March 24th, and then again on March 27th. So why did Barr lie on April 20th and say he didn't know if Mueller agreed with him? It's because news of Mueller's 3/24 and 3/27 letter hadn't broken yet, right, and Barr was trying to lie and weasel his way around it, wasn't he?

What if Barr had told the truth on April 20th?

Van Hollen: Did Mueller support your conclusions?

Barr: No, and in fact he sent us two letters in March expressing his concern for the way we portrayed his report.

Van Hollen: So it was not Mueller's conclusions, but your own that the President and his campaign did not collude or conspire with Russia, and that the President did not rise to criminal obstruction of justice?

Barr: Yes.
 
Last edited:
this calls for more investigations, come on LV426, you can say it.. just say it :rofl2:

it's much more ridiculous when it comes out of a nutjobs mouth
 
Southern Chicken said:
Mueller didn't dispute that the conversation.
Click to expand...

See how poorly written and worded this sentence is? That's no mistake. That's not laziness. That's not sloppiness. That's by design.

You wrote this inarticulate sentence like this because you are trying to shift the argument away from Barr's lies to the Senate on 4/20, to say that Barr didn't lie before the Senate because he had a vague conversation with Barr about it that Barr just happened to remember the same day that Democrats leaked news of Mueller's letters to Barr.

That's awfully convenient, isn't it?

So if Barr and Mueller had spoken, why did Barr say on 4/20 that he and Mueller didn't speak about Mueller's concerns, and why did he say post-hoc that they did?



NK US UP to his statement that he disputed that the conversation happened the way Barr described. LINK US UP!
Click to expand...

Barr lied about having that conversation when he testified before the Senate on April 20th.

Why did he lie to the Senate about having that conversation back on April 20th if he did have it with Mueller?

Unless you're trying to say he and Mueller spoke after he lied on April 20th.

Is that your new argument? That it doesn't matter that Barr lied on 4/20 about speaking with Mueller because he spoke to him eventually, post-hoc?

You think that's a legitimate defense for lying to the Senate in April?
 
Superfreak said:
First, he supposedly shared it with a Ukranian
Click to expand...

Distinction without difference. The guy was IRA-connected, and Manafort knew that.


Superfreak said:
Who is supposedly 'tied to Russian agents'.
Click to expand...

It's not "supposed", it's fact established in Mueller's report.

You know, the report you still haven't read.


Second, there is nothing to show the data was even received,
Click to expand...

Wrong. As Mueller's report states, the sharing of data had been happening for months, and the two of them discussed it.

Again, it's in Mueller's report...the one you refuse to read.


let alone passed on to Russia. Again, evidence matters.
Click to expand...

So you are admitting that Manafort did share polling data with Russia, thus proving Trump's campaign was colluding with them.

Also, if you read Mueller's report, which you refuse to do because you're a coward, you'd see that Russia used the polling data to target specific states with their troll army.
 
Getin the ring said:
this calls for more investigations, come on LV426, you can say it.. just say it :rofl2:

it's much more ridiculous when it comes out of a nutjobs mouth
Click to expand...

Getin's dick hasn't worked since '93.

That's why Getin is in here, posturing and impotently demanding accommodation.

Just get some Cialis, old fart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top