Status
Not open for further replies.
At least in pt5, here’s the first hint of Bill Clinton’s lying under oath:

And yet Clinton's process crime about a not-illegal act was vilified by some of the same posters here for years.

It was then dragged into a discussion about said blowjob. I honestly thought the Belz’s was referring to Hillary. I don’t think it’s fair to paint me as engaging in whattaboutism or false equivalency. I was just trying to set the record straight on what Bill Clinton’s criminal charge was about. Hint: Not about a blowjob.
 
Last edited:
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.
It grew out of a discussion of the special prosecutor rules then evolved to this:

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.
:rolleyes:

Yes yes, mustn't mention the name of Clinton without using the pedantic version of whataboutism. Do not shorten the issue to what it was really about, GOP and Ken Starr persecution.
 
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.

The basis for that claim that Congress may see the full Mueller report is the legally well-established oversight function of Congress, as well as its impeachment powers. See Wikipedia's page on "Congressional Oversight" for the history, political theory, Supreme Court rulings, etc.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
:confused:

What do you think I posted that was wrong? How else is the Legislative Branch supposed to Check and Balance the Executive Branch?
 
:confused:

What do you think I posted that was wrong? How else is the Legislative Branch supposed to Check and Balance the Executive Branch?

I did not mean to imply anything you said was wrong.

I actually meant to support and expand upon what you were saying, not contradict it.

Unless you thought you had stumbled into the Argument Clinic!
 
Last edited:
Trump Tweets

So, it has now been determined, by 18 people that truly hate President Trump, that there was No Collusion with Russia. In fact, it was an illegal investigation that should never have been allowed to start. I fought back hard against this Phony & Treasonous Hoax!
 
Trump Tweets

So, it has now been determined, by 18 people that truly hate President Trump some 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. I fought back hard raged like a spoiled brat against this Phony & Treasonous Hoax!
Ftfy, Donny.
 
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?

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.
 
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?

The logic is "the report is damaging to me, so if I discredit it before it's released then that will make it easier for people to discount its veracity".
 
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.
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.
 
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.

Manafort killed the golden goose. It seems that plenty of undeclared foreign lobbying was happening all over place. Sure, it was illegal, but no one ever got prosecuted for it.

Manafort got a little too loud and proud about this lawbreaking, so here comes the backlash.

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of folks.
 
As a skeptic, I reject all of Barr's claims. He is simply not presenting evidence to support any statements he is making.
 
Trump Tweets


Biggest scandal of our time - the coup that failed!

SPY GAMES

TIME FOR ANSWERS
 
Last edited:
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?
Trump has been repeating this lie for 2 years, not hard to understand.
 
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?

I'm quite sure you'll find that it is related to his work for Ukraine, alongside Manafort.
 
Breaking news, an Obama counsel is being indicted.

No further info. Other than it is related to the Mueller investigation.

It was related to the Mueller investigation in the sense that indictment is a continuation of Mueller's work investigating Greg Craig.

Could it be false statements regarding who gave orders to spy on the Trump campaign?

No, it couldn't.

All reports are that he failed to register as a foreign agent, like Manafort.
 
Could it be false statements regarding who gave orders to spy on the Trump campaign?

Gregory Craig, former Obama White House counsel, charged with making false statements related to Ukraine work in latest Mueller fallout

It could be, but it's not:
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.
 
How would Greg Craig count as "breaking news"? It's been in the news for quite a while.

Probably because Trump keeps bringing this **** up. Obama and Clinton spied on him, they conspired with Russia and so on... look here's a person who once worked for Obama... :rolleyes:

Obama and Clinton tried to remove Trump by a coup and they failed. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Boomerang update

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.
 
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.

No reason to bother with that exercise. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom