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

[LV426]

He still doesn't know because Mueller hasn't made a conclusion one way or the other.

Oh, he knows about Mueller's thoughts on Barr's summary of Mueller's report, because Mueller sent Barr two letters about his mis-characterization and misrepresentation.

Now you're trying to conflate two different things because you're a dishonest piece of shit.

A piece of shit so fucking dumb, you were conned by Donald Trump.

 

[LV426]

There were no crimes.

Other than the ones for which 34 businesses and people were indicted.

 

[LV426]

Mueller proved that by not indicting anyone but for minor “process” crimes

Move that bar!

A crime is a crime.

You just said no crimes, then in literally the next sentence, you say there were crimes.

Wow.

The defense of Trump needs work because this shit ain't gonna fly.

 

[Southern Chicken]

Yes he did.

He lied on April 20th when Senator Van Hollen asked him if Mueller agreed with his summary.

again,
Attorney General William Barr on Wednesday recalled a conversation he had with special counsel Robert Mueller after the special counsel voiced concerns to him in a letter.

Barr told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that he was surprised Mueller didn’t simply call him over his concerns about a summary the attorney general sent to Congress in late March about the 22-month probe.

"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/...ith-the-letter


Post the link that this was disputed by Mueller. If you don't you're a Liar!



I don't see a perjury investigation into Barr. Do you?

 

[Southern Chicken]

Oh, he knows about Mueller's thoughts on Barr's summary of Mueller's report, because Mueller sent Barr two letters about his mis-characterization and misrepresentation.

Now you're trying to conflate two different things because you're a dishonest piece of shit.

A piece of shit so fucking dumb, you were conned by Donald Trump.

again,
Attorney General William Barr on Wednesday recalled a conversation he had with special counsel Robert Mueller after the special counsel voiced concerns to him in a letter.

Barr told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that he was surprised Mueller didn’t simply call him over his concerns about a summary the attorney general sent to Congress in late March about the 22-month probe.

"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/...ith-the-letter


Post the link that this was disputed by Mueller. If you don't you're a Liar!

According to Barr Mueller was referring to Media coverage of the report it and not how Barr characterized and represented the findings or contents of the report.

 

[LV426]

again, Attorney General William Barr on Wednesday recalled a conversation he had with special counsel Robert Mueller after the special counsel voiced concerns to him in a letter.

Why did he not mention this conversation when asked by Van Hollen about whether or not Mueller agreed with his conclusions on April 20th?

 

[LV426]

again, Attorney General William Barr on Wednesday recalled a conversation he had with special counsel Robert Mueller after the special counsel voiced concerns to him in a letter.

Barr "recalled" this conversation 4 days after telling Van Hollen in the Senate that he didn't know if Mueller agreed with his summary of Mueller's report.

So that's suspicious.

 

[Getin the ring]

Oh, he knows about Mueller's thoughts on Barr's summary of Mueller's report, because Mueller sent Barr two letters about his mis-characterization and misrepresentation.

Now you're trying to conflate two different things because you're a dishonest piece of shit.

A piece of shit so fucking dumb, you were conned by Donald Trump.

mad bro

calm down you are giving your triggered high blood pressure state away, no one wants to send you over the edge

 

[LV426]

Attorney General William Barr on Wednesday recalled a conversation he had with special counsel Robert Mueller after the special counsel voiced concerns to him in a letter.

So now you're saying that Barr is saying that he did have a conversation with Mueller about Mueller's concerns about Barr's summary.

Yet, on April 20th, Barr had this exchange before the Senate:

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

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

But now you're saying this: "Attorney General William Barr on Wednesday recalled a conversation he had with special counsel Robert Mueller after the special counsel voiced concerns to him in a letter."

So that means Barr lied to Van Hollen on 4/20.

You're not very good at this.

 

[Southern Chicken]

Why did he not mention this conversation when asked by Van Hollen about whether or not Mueller agreed with his conclusions on April 20th?

Lets try this another way...... Why do you think no one has issued a perjury investigation into this?

 

[LV426]

According to Barr Mueller was referring to Media coverage of the report

NOPE.

You're done in by literally the first sentence you quoted:

Attorney General William Barr on Wednesday recalled a conversation he had with special counsel Robert Mueller after the special counsel voiced concerns to him in a letter.

What the Special Counsel said: “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.”

So yeah, they were concerned the way the media was playing it because of the lies and misrepresentation Barr committed with his summary.

So you're just fucking yourself over when you make this argument because you're admitting that Mueller thought Barr was lying about his report.

This is your defense? Needs work.

 

[Southern Chicken]

So now you're saying that Barr is saying that he did have a conversation with Mueller about Mueller's concerns about Barr's summary.

Yet, on April 20th, Barr had this exchange before the Senate:

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

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

But now you're saying this: "Attorney General William Barr on Wednesday recalled a conversation he had with special counsel Robert Mueller after the special counsel voiced concerns to him in a letter."

So that means Barr lied to Van Hollen on 4/20.

You're not very good at this.

Mueller was concern about the Media's presentation not whether Mueller supported his conclusion. It is why he answer he didn't know.

Should be simple to understand

 

[LV426]

calm down you are giving your triggered high blood pressure state away, no one wants to send you over the edge

I triggered an impotent response from a guy whose dick hasn't worked since the first Bush administration.

Cool. Cool cool cool.

 

[LV426]

Lets try this another way...... Why do you think no one has issued a perjury investigation into this?

How come Barr lied on 4/20 to Van Hollen?

It's because Barr thought Mueller's letters would never be made public, isn't it?

 

[LV426]

Lets try this another way...... Why do you think no one has issued a perjury investigation into this?

None of that will answer why Barr lied to the Senate on April 20th.

So why did he lie?

 

[Southern Chicken]

NOPE.

You're done in by literally the first sentence you quoted:



What the Special Counsel said: “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.”

So yeah, they were concerned the way the media was playing it because of the lies and misrepresentation Barr committed with his summary.

So you're just fucking yourself over when you make this argument because you're admitting that Mueller thought Barr was lying about his report.

This is your defense? Needs work.

Again Lets try this another way...... Why do you think no one has issued a perjury investigation into this?

 

[Southern Chicken]

None of that will answer why Barr lied to the Senate on April 20th.

So why did he lie?

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

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

 

[LV426]

Mueller was concern about the Media's presentation not whether Mueller supported his conclusion.

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.”

It is why he answer he didn't know.

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?

 

[LV426]

Again Lets try this another way...... Why do you think no one has issued a perjury investigation into this?

Because they're about to hold him in contempt.

 

[LV426]

Again Lets try this another way...... Why do you think no one has issued a perjury investigation into this?

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

So why did he lie on 4/20?