House Dems are trying to hold Barr in "contempt" for....Upholding the Law

You said something that is objectively untrue.

You made a claim that was directly and contradicted - explicitly - by both Mueller and the report. That’s how I know it’s untrue.

Given that you’ve repeatedly claimed that you are party to the details of the report, and have referenced THE LINE BEFORE THE ONE THAT CONTRADICTS YOUR CLAIM, the chances making the claim without realizing your claim is objectively false, can be reasonably concluded as 0.

The idea that with the details you’ve already presented that you “accidentally” missed the specific facts that show your claims are objectively false when you reference a high level of detail on everything else, is so laughable that I’m not even taking this claim seriously.

Because there is 0 chance you didn’t hear Mueller, or read the part of the reports that prove your claims false: this renders what you said, objectively a lie.

This is emphasized by your intentional and deliberate refusal to acknowledge the error by changing the subject, dodging, deflecting and changing your argument.

You lied; continued to lie, are still lying and, for some reason you’re trying to claim and imply you weren’t intentionally trying to mislead - which is also being deliberately dishonest.

Why do you continue to lie?

Why do you continue to lie? Knowing full well you have no evidence that I am attempting to deceive you. What I stated may be objectively wrong, but it is most certainly not an objective deception. The only way you could not be lying is if you have convinced yourself there exists evidence that I am trying to decieve you, which I would then chalk up to delusion and not intentional lying.

It's ok, you don't have to explain why since lying is the objectively the best way to justify censoring opposition. Russians know how to do this too. You are not special.

And perfect we’ve come full circle.

You said something factually untrue. It can only reasonabley be interpreted to be a lie.

You haven’t been able to defend your lie - and you’ve not been able to do more than try and change the subject, or dodge the main issue I’ve been raising.

You’ve failed to dodge, failed to defend your position: and now you’re simply resorting to copying me.

I described the evidence that you are deliberately writing false information in my previous post. I know you’re not going to acknowledge it, as it seems that truth and argument is irrelevant.

I’ve been asking repeatedly why you are deliberately peddling and continuing to peddle false information - knowingly?

Because Mueller is a better special investigator.

Its interesting you are holding Starr as some variety of gold standard, yet offer no reason as to why what Starr did was that much better.  

Case in point... "as IT WAS HIS JOB to do so...explicitly...to discover grounds for impeachment...."  THAT WAS NOT MUELLER'S JOB.

"...as Congress would not be allowed to accuse a president of an impeachable offense for the exact same reason Mueller stated he could not accuse a president of an impeachable offense." DOJ guidelines apply to Congress? Are you also cuckoo for cocoa puffs?

I'd say Starr was better at doing his job of uncovering possible impeachable offenses...by listing possible impeachable offenses in his list of "grounds for impeachment"

Such a list exists nowhere in the Mueller report. All we have is a kabuki maze of possible offenses that may or may not be possible impeachable offenses..who can say? Mueller sure did not. What a chickenshit.

"I'd say Starr was better at doing his job of uncovering possible impeachable offenses..."  Since that wasn't specifically Mueller's job, apples and irrelevant oranges.

"Such a list exists nowhere in the Mueller report"  --- its almost like that wasn't the goal from start, to find impeachable offenses. 

"All we have is a kabuki maze of possible offenses that may or may not be possible impeachable offenses..who can say? " --- Congress.  

"Mueller sure did not. What a chickenshit."  --- What Mueller said is pretty plain, and the words "innocent" aren't one of them.  Instead, we have a list of offenses, what could be construed as criminal, and a man smart enough not to taint a pool by boldly (with no trial) declare them impeachable offenses, but then again, lets be real here: the goal of the Starr report was impeachment, by any means possible.  

Now, the shoe is on the other foot, and the impeachable actor actually did do some impeachable crap.  (FYI, if you read what BC 'lied' about, he applied the definitions given to him by his interlocutors, Mr. Starr decided to not use the same applied definition.)