Area Criminal Shocked by Congresswoman Who Cites His Crimes Out Loud

[SummerMadness]

Area Criminal Shocked by Congresswoman Who Cites His Crimes Out Loud

America loves a feel-good story. How else to explain our government’s appetite for redemption arcs? Elliott Abrams was once convicted of lying to Congress and on Wednesday, he got to testify before Congress again, this time in his capacity as our special envoy to Venezuela. But not everyone was happy to see him. Representative Ilhan Omar, a Democrat from Minnesota, questioned the former assistant secretary of State about his old misdeeds. “In 1991, you pleaded guilty to two counts of withholding information from Congress regarding your involvement in the Iran-Contra affair, for which you were later pardoned by President George H.W. Bush,” Omar began, before asking Abrams why the committee should believe anything he had to say.

A spluttering Abrams complained that Omar did not give him a chance to respond, but the congresswoman continued. “You dismissed as ‘communist propaganda’ reports about the massacre of El Mozote in which more than 800 civilians, including children as young as 2 years old, were brutally murdered by U.S.-trained troops,” she said. “You later said the U.S. policy in El Salvador was a ‘fabulous achievement.’ … Do you think that massacre was a ‘fabulous achievement?”

 

[HTacianas]

Area Criminal Shocked by Congresswoman Who Cites His Crimes Out Loud

CNN should hire him as a pundit.

 

[yougottabekidding]

Area Criminal Shocked by Congresswoman Who Cites His Crimes Out Loud

Did she cite the six times Hillary Clinton lied to Congress - as testified to by James Comey?

 

[cow451]

Did she cite the six times Hillary Clinton lied to Congress - as testified to by James Comey?

Not did she solve the mystery of how Hillary avoided being locked up by a GOP dominated government from 2017-2019.

 

[SummerMadness]

Did she cite the six times Hillary Clinton lied to Congress - as testified to by James Comey?

1. Whataboutism
2. You're off-topic
3. This topic is about a convicted criminal, which the person you reference is not
4. If you want to start a thread on your off-topic subject, feel free to, but not here

 

[yougottabekidding]

I watched the interaction - It would be good for others to do so.

First, you can only be a criminal if convicted of a crime - and he has not been convicted of any crime that she tried to pin on him.

Second, if you are speaking of lying to congress, then you also have to look at Hillary, McCabe and many others on the Democrat side also. It is considered partisan to point out the failings of one side only.

 

[yougottabekidding]

1. Whataboutism
2. You're off-topic
3. This topic is about a convicted criminal, which the person you reference is not
4. If you want to start a thread on your off-topic subject, feel free to, but not here

Post #^

Also, what crime did she call out -

Please note that beyond the lying - he has not been accused, charged with, or found guilty of the 'genocide' line that the good congresswoman offered.

and when he flat out said no - she responded by saying "I'll take that as a yes."

Say what? He tells you no and you will take it as a yes?

 

[SummerMadness]

I watched the interaction - It would be good for others to do so.

First, you can only be a criminal if convicted of a crime - and he has not been convicted of any crime that she tried to pin on him.

Second, if you are speaking of lying to congress, then you also have to look at Hillary, McCabe and many others on the Democrat side also. It is considered partisan to point out the failings of one side only.

You're off-topic and he was convicted of a crime, of which the congresswoman directly addressed. He simply did not like the crimes he was convicted of coming up during his testimony.

The irony here of course is that if this were a young unarmed black man accosted by the police, you would hear many people citing his criminal record, if any. However, we have a criminal who has his criminal record being cited and it's denial of those crimes or trying to change the subject about his criminal past. Why must we ignore his criminal past when he is in a position to commit the very same crimes he was convicted of?

 

[yougottabekidding]

You're off-topic and he was convicted of a crime, of which the congresswoman directly addressed. He simply did not like the crimes he was convicted of coming up during his testimony.

What crime was he convicted of?

And what questions were being asked that were connected to that crime?

 

[SummerMadness]

Post #^

Also, what crime did she call out -

Please note that beyond the lying - he has not been accused, charged with, or found guilty of the 'genocide' line that the good congresswoman offered.

and when he flat out said no - she responded by saying "I'll take that as a yes."

Say what? He tells you no and you will take it as a yes?

Lying and covering up your role in a genocide pretty much demonstrates a clear role in that. This is the equivalent are arguing that a person convicted of destroying evidence of a murder is not implicated in that murder because the evidence was tampered with by the suspect. Lying about your role in a genocide demonstrates one's hands are pretty dirty.

This is the reason obstruction of justice, witness tampering and destroying evidence are such serious crimes.

 

[yougottabekidding]

Here is the exchange

 

[yougottabekidding]

Lying and covering up your role in a genocide pretty much demonstrates a clear role in that

Cite where any court ruled it a genocide and show where he had a direct roll in it.

 

[Pommer]

.