a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Mexico. All three of them.No, that's not it at all. There never was a Mueller report. In fact who's the Mueller guy? Never heard of him. 2+2=5 and we have always been at war with Eurasia.
Mexico. All three of them.No, that's not it at all. There never was a Mueller report. In fact who's the Mueller guy? Never heard of him. 2+2=5 and we have always been at war with Eurasia.
Nobody gives a crap what anybody thinks about Clinton getting a rusty trombone from the intern.
The problem is it being used as "Whataboutism" that should mean a fly's fart when we're talking about Trump.
And yet Clinton's process crime about a not-illegal act was vilified by some of the same posters here for years.
It grew out of a discussion of the special prosecutor rules then evolved to this:I’m not willing to do the work, but I’d be curious as to who brought “Clinton’s blowjob” into this thread in the first place.
Fast Eddie B said:Unless there is a VERY good reason, we the people are entitled to know what our government is doing.
With the exception of using taxpayer money to cover up the sexual peccadilloes of Congress members, in that case, we can go **** ourselves.
Nothing.
Let’s move on.
But let’s also try not to misstate what Clinton’s crime was. Repeatedly.
Even the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee has said Barr is "required" to provide the report to him, but he hasn't shown any rules, regulations or laws to back up his claim.
Did she point out in the regulations she drafted exactly where the AG is required to release the report to Congress? Until she does, her opinion is a nonstarter.
Can you show the law that will allow Congress the right to get it? Nobody else has.
Again you cite one set of laws.The AG is not required to release the report to anyone according to DOJ regulations (see my post above). Special Counsel reports were required by law to be made public until 1999 when Congress allowed the "Ethics in Government Act of 1978" to expire after the Starr Report came out. The Reno DOJ wrote the current regulations giving the AG discretion on whether or not to release special counsel reports.
Attorney General Janet Reno sent Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder to Congress so he could argue on behalf of the DOJ for Congress to allow the Special Counsel Act to expire, in part, because the act required special counsel reports to be released to the public. Hilarious now he's arguing that special counsel reports should be made public.
Link
Again you cite one set of laws.
There is a different set of laws that gives the Congress broad subpoena powers.
What makes you think some DoJ 'rules' supersede the Constitutional power of Congress to put a check on the POTUS?
I’m not sure exactly how “co-equal” expands on “equal”, but it’s not like the legislative branch is subservient to the executive branch.
Though Lordy, it often seems like it’s portrayed that way.
What do you think I posted that was wrong? How else is the Legislative Branch supposed to Check and Balance the Executive Branch?
I can't seem to find the door out of it....
Unless you thought you had stumbled into the Argument Clinic!
Nunes must be pissed that Barr is stealing his schtick.
.It grew out of a discussion of the special prosecutor rules then evolved to this:
Sorry you can't see the connected sequence but I do believe we are well past this now..
False.
You were the first to bring up "Clinton's blowjob." Quote yourself, not me.
Ftfy, Donny.Trump Tweets
So, it has now been determined, by18 people that truly hate President Trumpsome grovelling smart-guy I hand-picked to say this, that there was No Collusion with Russia. In fact, it was an illegal investigation that should never have been allowed to start. Ifought back hardraged like a spoiled brat against this Phony & Treasonous Hoax!
BREAKING via @PostRoz @thamburger: Gregory Craig, ex-Obama White House counsel, expects to be charged in relation to Ukrainian work with Manafort, his lawyers say https://wapo.st/2UulOc5 ?
I know it's something of a fool's errand, but I really don't understand Trump's logic here.
"it was an illegal investigation that should never have been allowed to start."
Wasn't it started by Rod Rosenstein, using the accepted process for appointing a Speical Counsel? What is illegal about it? I understand that he doesn't like it, and thinks it was a witch hunt, hugely influenced by Democrats (depsite being authorised and overseen almost entirely by Republicans) etc. etc. - but in what way was it illegal?
I know it's something of a fool's errand, but I really don't understand Trump's logic here.
"it was an illegal investigation that should never have been allowed to start."
Wasn't it started by Rod Rosenstein, using the accepted process for appointing a Speical Counsel? What is illegal about it? I understand that he doesn't like it, and thinks it was a witch hunt, hugely influenced by Democrats (depsite being authorised and overseen almost entirely by Republicans) etc. etc. - but in what way was it illegal?
It is not even that thought out, it's simply that whatever Trump wants to say he says it regardless of facts, evidence or truth. He simply says what he thinks at any given moment. And since he's never had to listen to feedback telling him not everything he thinks and does is right and OK he has no internal filters.The only logic Trump uses is "whatever I can get my base to swallow"- which means "illegal" doesn't have to be accurate, it's just a simplistic meme that those folks can follow.
https://twitter.com/jdawsey1/status/1116135803707633664
Article embedded in tweet.
The reason this is significant and posted in this thread, is that the investigation that these charges stem from was spun off from the Mueller investigation.
Trump Tweets
Biggest scandal of our time - the coup that failed!
SPY GAMES
TIME FOR ANSWERS
Trump has been repeating this lie for 2 years, not hard to understand.I know it's something of a fool's errand, but I really don't understand Trump's logic here.
"it was an illegal investigation that should never have been allowed to start."
Wasn't it started by Rod Rosenstein, using the accepted process for appointing a Speical Counsel? What is illegal about it? I understand that he doesn't like it, and thinks it was a witch hunt, hugely influenced by Democrats (depsite being authorised and overseen almost entirely by Republicans) etc. etc. - but in what way was it illegal?
I know it's something of a fool's errand, but I really don't understand Trump's logic here.
Breaking news, an Obama counsel is being indicted.
No further info. Other than it is related to the Mueller investigation.
Could it be false statements regarding who gave orders to spy on the Trump campaign?
Breaking news, an Obama counsel is being indicted.
No further info. Other than it is related to the Mueller investigation.
Could it be false statements regarding who gave orders to spy on the Trump campaign?
Could it be false statements regarding who gave orders to spy on the Trump campaign?
The indictment stems from work Craig did with GOP lobbyist Paul Manafort while Craig was a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, the law firm he joined after ending his tenure at the White House.
I'm quite sure you'll find that it is related to his work for Ukraine, alongside Manafort.
How would Greg Craig count as "breaking news"? It's been in the news for quite a while.
Larry Johnson said:Attorney General Barr stated the obvious--law enforcement and intelligence agencies spied on Donald Trump's campaign--and touched off an incredible display of stupidity and obtuseness among the Trump haters. Me? I was cheering because Bill Barr confirmed what I said two years ago. Unfortunately, for daring to speak a simple truth in the spring of 2017 I immediately was a target of the hate Trump media mob.
I was attacked for telling the public the truth that foreign intelligence--the British to be precise--were spying on the Trump campaign and passing this info along to US intelligence. But the Brits were not acting unilaterally. There was full cooperation and activity by U.S. intelligence agencies and the FBI. Another word for this is "COLLUSION." [...]
Side note:
If your last name is Craig and you decide to name your child Greg, you should be thrown in prison.
As a skeptic, I reject all of Barr's claims. He is simply not presenting evidence to support any statements he is making.
As a skeptic, I can infer that though Barr may be misrepresenting what the Special Counsel investigators found, by sincere misunderstanding or otherwise, what he has told the public so far probably isn't far from the truth.
I expect some heavy backlash from insiders if Barr was just making **** up at the mic.