Mueller report: Barr lied! There was was obstruction... and... surprise surprise...

Of course, he's a Russian agent and stuff.

He worked studiously to gain our trust in the 90's, knowing Trump would win in 2016 so he could return and hatch his plot.

 

So to confirm then, in Mueller's report contains the following: "In four of them, all three elements: Act, Nexus and Intent, were unequivocal." Is this correct?

 

Sure ... I think I hear "ample & direct evidence" Adam Schiff say so. Is it your contention the AG, Bill Barr lied when he said the DOJ would not take up a case on obstruction?

 

In his summary letter, did Barr present Muller's conclusions below?

1. No conspiracy with Russia

2. Did not come to a conclusion on whether to indict for obstruction.

Wow, a conveniently edited video by the biased Washington Post! So you think that by leaving things out in his summary letter, Barr LIED? Do you know what lying actually is? The very worst that you could accuse him of is being dishonest or deceptive.

 

I'm not asking the EXACT same questions, but rather, I'm asking them in a different way. And the reason is because you are getting things mixed up. I am talking about the Muller report. You seem to be talking about Barr's summary letter, considering that you said that Mueller's comments were NOT made public and "that's why Mueller complained!" As you can see below:

Yes, Muller complained about Barr's SUMMARY LETTER! However, what does this have to do with the Mueller report?

My point is that OF COURSE Barr's summary letter doesn't contain Mueller's comments on Trump's efforts to impede the investigation. However, the Mueller report that was released DOES. Don't you accept this?

My other point is that Barr said during testimony that Mueller said that the OLC opinion didn't stop him from indicting Trump. Do you accept that this is what Barr testified?

Is collusion illegal?

 

What is the difference?

In any case, Barr has done every type of "lying" you can define.

Unrelated, but kinda reminds me of Robert Heinlein. He says that lying is an "art". That there are three types of lies. The first one, the least "artistic" is saying something that you know is not true. The second one is telling part of the truth, but not all of it. In this category falls twisting the truth. The third one, is saying the truth. But saying it in such a way that nobody believes it. This last one is the one that requires the most skill.

 

Look, at this point, I don't know... I don't care. Barr lied. Falsus in unum falsus in omnibus.

So quoting Barr or discussing anything Barr said is pointless. It would be like discussing what Rudy Giuliani or Donald Trump say. We all know they're lying. And anything they say from here on is useless unless they say it under oath. And even then their usefulness is probably going to be only as it pertains to their perjury trials.

 

Barr teases Pelosi, asks if she brought her handcuffs on sidelines of DC event



https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ba...rought-her-handcuffs-on-sidelines-of-dc-event

 

You say this so confidently, even though right before it you said:

You have failed miserably at addressing your confused replies. If you want to have another attempt, my post is right here: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...prise-surprise.554415/page-11#post-1070566611

You haven't even been able to name ONE SINGLE lie! Let alone any lies that follow!

 

What did Barr say that matches the first type of lying?

 

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4795495/dick-durbin-questions-william-barr-mueller-report

 

Do you even know what Congressman Crist's question was?

 

Hiroo Onoda is that you?

 

Yes, But... does it matter? He doubled down....

 

Did Crist ask Barr if he was aware of any concerns? Think carefully now.

 

What do you mean "think carefully"? Why ask if you already know the answer?

 

To see what YOU think his question was. You obviously don't know, but yet you use this to claim that Barr's answer to it was a lie! HINT: He did NOT ask if Barr was aware of "concerns."

 

Barr didn't lie, the DNC is just looking to try to trip him up on some aspect of his testimony, a perjury trap, hence why they wanted lawyers to question him rather than Congressmen.

 

Yep, given that they accused him of lying by answering a question that he wasn't even asked, they would have continued this trend.

 

Mueller's letter said Barr's summation.........“threatens to undermine public confidence”..........and.........“did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of the investigation.

In the Trumpian world of double think, Barr took that to mean no one had a problem with his summation the same way Trump took Mueller saying (to paraphrase) "I did not exonerate you on obstruction" as complete exoneration.

Barr's summation was a lie, and so was his reply to Crist. No wonder why the Grifter-in-Chief is so happy with him.

 

Uh, Barr released the report for public consumption, something he had no legal requirement to do. Get over it.

 

I don't have to "think" anything. All questions are on tape.

 

It's a unique situation when the AG......or perhaps I should say President Flim Flam's AG...........could be cited by the House for contempt and perjury.

 

When exactly did Barr say that no one had a problem with his summation?

Okay, so what in your mind was Crist's question?

 

And yet you aren't able to state his question!