Bill Barr's DOJ changed the rules to allow election interference and investigations

[j-mac]

Oh please....Are you telling me that Joe doesn't know, and isn't in on future agenda items?

We know Bidens version of "the new green deal" isn't the same as AOC's version.

Point out the differences.

 

[j-mac]

If you consider a single vote to be bi-partisan, than you would be technically correct.

Oh, and how many for you is 'bi partisan'???

Here we go, give us a lesson on what you think of Democrats that don't march lockstep....

From 10 to 40 or more republicans.
That's how many voted for democrat nominated supreme court justices.

Oh, so those that don't vote lockstep what are they?

 

[j-mac]

Oh please....Are you telling me that Joe doesn't know, and isn't in on future agenda items?

We know Bidens version of "the new green deal" isn't the same as AOC's version.

Oh, and besides, How'd the GND get inserted here...Weren't we talking about whether or not Biden knows what the agenda is for packing the court? Why don't you stay on track there liar....

 

[Coyote]

I really hope so...I've never seen such corruption of our normally non-political institutions in my life time. If the only thing a Biden win accomplishes is the cleaning up and de-politicizing, and the restoring of norms, rules of behavior...it will be more than enough.

Cleaning up Trump's filthy swamp.

To me, if they pack the court w/10 or more SCOTUS I'd be ecstatic.

I'm extremely conflicted on that frankly. I'm so angry at what McConnell did, denying Obama his right to fill a vacancy, then flipping it around in 2020 that I want to say - why SHOULDN'T the Dems do this? Y'all started a precedent of upping the ante you deserve the fall out from it. But the thing is, I don't think it's good for the country. Very conflicted.

Mitch didn't deny Barry's right to anything, Dummy.

Barry nominated someone. That's where his rights end.

And the Dems would be perfectly within their legal rights to pack the courts.

The question, as always, is just because you can - should you?

McConnel said yes. YOU lot said HELL YES (but - change the rules again in 2020).

Don't whine if you lose and the Dems do this.

Precedents. Elections have consequences. And all that crap you spout every other week to justify setting bad precedents for political power gains.

Show me where McConnell said he wants to "pack the courts". He has never said anything about wanting to add justices to the SC.

Show me where I said he wanted to.

You can't keep up with what you posted just minutes ago?

And the Dems would be perfectly within their legal rights to pack the courts.

The question, as always, is just because you can - should you?

McConnel said yes.

Thanks for proving to us once again that, not only can you not read, you miss the general point.

Just because you can do something (in a discussion involving multiple actions setting precedents) - should you?

McConnel by his actions, has clearly said yes.

Like Lucy with the football, you people are always changing what you said just mere posts earlier...

You said: McConnel said yes

Now you write that bull shit above about "by his actions" crap....Jesus, are there no more honest Democrats?

Jesus can't you guys read? What is it with RWNJ's? (and I'm not a Dam). What the heck do you think I mean by change the rules in 2020? Can't educate the uneducable idiots who don't comprehend the precedents that have been set and could continue to be set - just because YOU CAN.

The question, as always, is just because you can - should you?

McConnel said yes. YOU lot said HELL YES (but - change the rules again in 2020).

 

[j-mac]

I really hope so...I've never seen such corruption of our normally non-political institutions in my life time. If the only thing a Biden win accomplishes is the cleaning up and de-politicizing, and the restoring of norms, rules of behavior...it will be more than enough.

Cleaning up Trump's filthy swamp.

To me, if they pack the court w/10 or more SCOTUS I'd be ecstatic.

I'm extremely conflicted on that frankly. I'm so angry at what McConnell did, denying Obama his right to fill a vacancy, then flipping it around in 2020 that I want to say - why SHOULDN'T the Dems do this? Y'all started a precedent of upping the ante you deserve the fall out from it. But the thing is, I don't think it's good for the country. Very conflicted.

Mitch didn't deny Barry's right to anything, Dummy.

Barry nominated someone. That's where his rights end.

And the Dems would be perfectly within their legal rights to pack the courts.

The question, as always, is just because you can - should you?

McConnel said yes. YOU lot said HELL YES (but - change the rules again in 2020).

Don't whine if you lose and the Dems do this.

Precedents. Elections have consequences. And all that crap you spout every other week to justify setting bad precedents for political power gains.

Show me where McConnell said he wants to "pack the courts". He has never said anything about wanting to add justices to the SC.

Show me where I said he wanted to.

You can't keep up with what you posted just minutes ago?

And the Dems would be perfectly within their legal rights to pack the courts.

The question, as always, is just because you can - should you?

McConnel said yes.

Thanks for proving to us once again that, not only can you not read, you miss the general point.

Just because you can do something (in a discussion involving multiple actions setting precedents) - should you?

McConnel by his actions, has clearly said yes.

Like Lucy with the football, you people are always changing what you said just mere posts earlier...

You said: McConnel said yes

Now you write that bull shit above about "by his actions" crap....Jesus, are there no more honest Democrats?

Jesus can't you guys read? What is it with RWNJ's? (and I'm not a Dam). What the heck do you think I mean by change the rules in 2020? Can't educate the uneducable idiots who don't comprehend the precedents that have been set and could continue to be set - just because YOU CAN.

The question, as always, is just because you can - should you?

McConnel said yes. YOU lot said HELL YES (but - change the rules again in 2020).

Look, in post 156 you changed it to read:

" McConnel by his actions, has clearly said yes. "

So which one was it?

Why don't you post a link so we can see ourselves...?

 

[jc456]

Good for him....I hope he follows through...It's bull shit that you want to be able to fraud the vote with impugnity....

Translation - Fine with me if Donald wants to cheat to win!

Comey says What?

 

[jc456]

I really hope so...I've never seen such corruption of our normally non-political institutions in my life time. If the only thing a Biden win accomplishes is the cleaning up and de-politicizing, and the restoring of norms, rules of behavior...it will be more than enough.

Cleaning up Trump's filthy swamp.

To me, if they pack the court w/10 or more SCOTUS I'd be ecstatic.

I'm extremely conflicted on that frankly. I'm so angry at what McConnell did, denying Obama his right to fill a vacancy, then flipping it around in 2020 that I want to say - why SHOULDN'T the Dems do this? Y'all started a precedent of upping the ante you deserve the fall out from it. But the thing is, I don't think it's good for the country. Very conflicted.

Mitch didn't deny Barry's right to anything, Dummy.

Barry nominated someone. That's where his rights end.

And the Dems would be perfectly within their legal rights to pack the courts.

The question, as always, is just because you can - should you?

McConnel said yes. YOU lot said HELL YES (but - change the rules again in 2020).

Don't whine if you lose and the Dems do this.

Precedents. Elections have consequences. And all that crap you spout every other week to justify setting bad precedents for political power gains.

Show me where McConnell said he wants to "pack the courts". He has never said anything about wanting to add justices to the SC.

Show me where I said he wanted to.

You can't keep up with what you posted just minutes ago?

And the Dems would be perfectly within their legal rights to pack the courts.

The question, as always, is just because you can - should you?

McConnel said yes.

Thanks for proving to us once again that, not only can you not read, you miss the general point.

Just because you can do something (in a discussion involving multiple actions setting precedents) - should you?

McConnel by his actions, has clearly said yes.

Like Lucy with the football, you people are always changing what you said just mere posts earlier...

You said: McConnel said yes

Now you write that bull shit above about "by his actions" crap....Jesus, are there no more honest Democrats?

Jesus can't you guys read? What is it with RWNJ's? (and I'm not a Dam). What the heck do you think I mean by change the rules in 2020? Can't educate the uneducable idiots who don't comprehend the precedents that have been set and could continue to be set - just because YOU CAN.

The question, as always, is just because you can - should you?

McConnel said yes. YOU lot said HELL YES (but - change the rules again in 2020).

Comey says What?

 

[jc456]

This of course, changes long standing policy. Everyone had better buckle up and be watchful. It's coming.

In an internal announcement, the Justice Department created an exception to a decadeslong policy meant to prevent prosecutors from taking overt investigative steps that might affect the outcome of the vote.​

​

The Department of Justice has weakened its long-standing prohibition against interfering in elections, according to two department officials.​

​

Avoiding election interference is the overarching principle of DOJ policy on voting-related crimes. In place since at least 1980, the policy generally bars prosecutors not only from making any announcement about ongoing investigations close to an election but also from taking public steps — such as an arrest or a raid — before a vote is finalized because the publicity could tip the balance of a race.​

​

But according to an email sent Friday by an official in the Public Integrity Section in Washington, now if a U.S. attorney’s office suspects election fraud that involves postal workers or military employees, federal investigators will be allowed to take public investigative steps before the polls close, even if those actions risk affecting the outcome of the election.​

​

The email announced “an exception to the general non-interference with elections policy.” The new exemption, the email stated, applied to instances in which “the integrity of any component of the federal government is implicated by election offenses within the scope of the policy including but not limited to misconduct by federal officials or employees administering an aspect of the voting process through the United States Postal Service, the Department of Defense or any other federal department or agency.”​

​

Specifically citing postal workers and military employees is noteworthy, former DOJ officials said. But the exception is written so broadly that it could cover other types of investigations as well, they said.​

DOJ Frees Federal Prosecutors to Take Steps That Could Interfere With Elections, Weakening Long-standing Policy

In an internal announcement, the Justice Department created an exception to a decadeslong policy meant to prevent prosecutors from taking overt investigative steps that might affect the outcome of the vote.

www.propublica.org

So it’s okay for state prosecutors to investigate and bring up charges against President Trump during an election, but not okay for the DOJ to do it to anyone else. Gotcha.

Dumbass, Cy Vance is the DIstrict Atty for Manhattan and he's investigating Trump for tax fraud, which has already been explained in lengthy articles in the NYT.
He has not filed any charges. He's still awaiting the tax returns which in the last hearing, a federal judge said Trump has to turn them over.
The other investigations are being conducted by U.S. Attorneys in the SDNY and Eastern Virginia districts.
Trump's in a lot of trouble, and I hope after he loses in November, these guys swarm him like a cloud of locusts and put his sorry fucking ass in jail.

tRump on 1-20-21

win that lottery yet?

 

[BS Filter]

This is where the BS in your name comes from

You've never seen the video, so you don't know what is on it. Duh!

But you just said...

She most certainly did. It's recorded on video.

So which is it?

What do you think?

 

[Nostra]

Okay. Now explain how being a wise Latina woman is a qualification for the Supreme Court.

As there are no constitutional requirement for a justice on the supreme court, someone can add anything as a qualification.

So you believe being a Latina woman makes her wise?

AOC proves that false.

 

[Nostra]

YOu are saying the NY DA hasn't seen Trump's tax returns yet, but anonymous sources in that office have leaked the contents of Trump's tax returns to the Fake News NYTs?

How does that work, Stupid?

That's where the leak came from. Prove me wrong.

I can prove you lied, by posting your own words.

They have not seen his returns, as your link proves. Man, you really are stupid.

So which is it. Did they have his returns and leak them like you posted before, or never had them as you just posted.

One way or the other, you lied about where the tax return leaks came from.

One way or the other, you lied about where the tax return leaks came from.

You can't prove I'm wrong, Dummy.

 

[Nostra]

I really hope so...I've never seen such corruption of our normally non-political institutions in my life time. If the only thing a Biden win accomplishes is the cleaning up and de-politicizing, and the restoring of norms, rules of behavior...it will be more than enough.

Cleaning up Trump's filthy swamp.

To me, if they pack the court w/10 or more SCOTUS I'd be ecstatic.

I'm extremely conflicted on that frankly. I'm so angry at what McConnell did, denying Obama his right to fill a vacancy, then flipping it around in 2020 that I want to say - why SHOULDN'T the Dems do this? Y'all started a precedent of upping the ante you deserve the fall out from it. But the thing is, I don't think it's good for the country. Very conflicted.

Mitch didn't deny Barry's right to anything, Dummy.

Barry nominated someone. That's where his rights end.

And the Dems would be perfectly within their legal rights to pack the courts.

The question, as always, is just because you can - should you?

McConnel said yes. YOU lot said HELL YES (but - change the rules again in 2020).

Don't whine if you lose and the Dems do this.

Precedents. Elections have consequences. And all that crap you spout every other week to justify setting bad precedents for political power gains.

Show me where McConnell said he wants to "pack the courts". He has never said anything about wanting to add justices to the SC.

Show me where I said he wanted to.

You can't keep up with what you posted just minutes ago?

And the Dems would be perfectly within their legal rights to pack the courts.

The question, as always, is just because you can - should you?

McConnel said yes.

Thanks for proving to us once again that, not only can you not read, you miss the general point.

Just because you can do something (in a discussion involving multiple actions setting precedents) - should you?

McConnel by his actions, has clearly said yes.

Now it's "by his actions"??????????????????????

When did Mitch pack the SC, Dummy?

Your lies are piling up here.

Not my fault you have reading issues dude. The fact that you remove part of the quote kinda indicates the thinness of the ice under your feet.

The question, as always, is just because you can - should you? The "change the rules in 2020" ought to clue you in as to context, but that was apparently a bridge too far. Now go take your nap or do something equally productive.

McConnel said yes. YOU lot said HELL YES (but - change the rules again in 2020).

I just handed you your dimpled ass. Show us the Quote from McConnell saying 'Yes' to packing the SC.

Back up your bullshit.

GO!

 

[BS Filter]

YOu are saying the NY DA hasn't seen Trump's tax returns yet, but anonymous sources in that office have leaked the contents of Trump's tax returns to the Fake News NYTs?

How does that work, Stupid?

That's where the leak came from. Prove me wrong.

I can prove you lied, by posting your own words.

They have not seen his returns, as your link proves. Man, you really are stupid.

So which is it. Did they have his returns and leak them like you posted before, or never had them as you just posted.

One way or the other, you lied about where the tax return leaks came from.

One way or the other, you lied about where the tax return leaks came from.

You can't prove I'm wrong, Dummy.

The dumb is strong in this one. He's barely treading water.

 

[j-mac]

I really hope so...I've never seen such corruption of our normally non-political institutions in my life time. If the only thing a Biden win accomplishes is the cleaning up and de-politicizing, and the restoring of norms, rules of behavior...it will be more than enough.

Cleaning up Trump's filthy swamp.

To me, if they pack the court w/10 or more SCOTUS I'd be ecstatic.

I'm extremely conflicted on that frankly. I'm so angry at what McConnell did, denying Obama his right to fill a vacancy, then flipping it around in 2020 that I want to say - why SHOULDN'T the Dems do this? Y'all started a precedent of upping the ante you deserve the fall out from it. But the thing is, I don't think it's good for the country. Very conflicted.

Mitch didn't deny Barry's right to anything, Dummy.

Barry nominated someone. That's where his rights end.

And the Dems would be perfectly within their legal rights to pack the courts.

The question, as always, is just because you can - should you?

McConnel said yes. YOU lot said HELL YES (but - change the rules again in 2020).

Don't whine if you lose and the Dems do this.

Precedents. Elections have consequences. And all that crap you spout every other week to justify setting bad precedents for political power gains.

Show me where McConnell said he wants to "pack the courts". He has never said anything about wanting to add justices to the SC.

Show me where I said he wanted to.

You can't keep up with what you posted just minutes ago?

And the Dems would be perfectly within their legal rights to pack the courts.

The question, as always, is just because you can - should you?

McConnel said yes.

Thanks for proving to us once again that, not only can you not read, you miss the general point.

Just because you can do something (in a discussion involving multiple actions setting precedents) - should you?

McConnel by his actions, has clearly said yes.

Like Lucy with the football, you people are always changing what you said just mere posts earlier...

You said: McConnel said yes

Now you write that bull shit above about "by his actions" crap....Jesus, are there no more honest Democrats?

Jesus can't you guys read? What is it with RWNJ's? (and I'm not a Dam). What the heck do you think I mean by change the rules in 2020? Can't educate the uneducable idiots who don't comprehend the precedents that have been set and could continue to be set - just because YOU CAN.

The question, as always, is just because you can - should you?

McConnel said yes. YOU lot said HELL YES (but - change the rules again in 2020).

Look, in post 156 you changed it to read:

" McConnel by his actions, has clearly said yes. "

So which one was it?

Why don't you post a link so we can see ourselves...?

Bump....

Come on Cyote...A few minutes ago you couldn't wait to post, now I gave you not only the original post number, but the lie as well, and you disappear....Typical...

 

[Nostra]

I really hope so...I've never seen such corruption of our normally non-political institutions in my life time. If the only thing a Biden win accomplishes is the cleaning up and de-politicizing, and the restoring of norms, rules of behavior...it will be more than enough.

Cleaning up Trump's filthy swamp.

To me, if they pack the court w/10 or more SCOTUS I'd be ecstatic.

I'm extremely conflicted on that frankly. I'm so angry at what McConnell did, denying Obama his right to fill a vacancy, then flipping it around in 2020 that I want to say - why SHOULDN'T the Dems do this? Y'all started a precedent of upping the ante you deserve the fall out from it. But the thing is, I don't think it's good for the country. Very conflicted.

Mitch didn't deny Barry's right to anything, Dummy.

Barry nominated someone. That's where his rights end.

And the Dems would be perfectly within their legal rights to pack the courts.

The question, as always, is just because you can - should you?

McConnel said yes. YOU lot said HELL YES (but - change the rules again in 2020).

Don't whine if you lose and the Dems do this.

Precedents. Elections have consequences. And all that crap you spout every other week to justify setting bad precedents for political power gains.

Show me where McConnell said he wants to "pack the courts". He has never said anything about wanting to add justices to the SC.

Show me where I said he wanted to.

You can't keep up with what you posted just minutes ago?

And the Dems would be perfectly within their legal rights to pack the courts.

The question, as always, is just because you can - should you?

McConnel said yes.

Thanks for proving to us once again that, not only can you not read, you miss the general point.

Just because you can do something (in a discussion involving multiple actions setting precedents) - should you?

McConnel by his actions, has clearly said yes.

Like Lucy with the football, you people are always changing what you said just mere posts earlier...

You said: McConnel said yes

Now you write that bull shit above about "by his actions" crap....Jesus, are there no more honest Democrats?

Jesus can't you guys read? What is it with RWNJ's? (and I'm not a Dam). What the heck do you think I mean by change the rules in 2020? Can't educate the uneducable idiots who don't comprehend the precedents that have been set and could continue to be set - just because YOU CAN.

The question, as always, is just because you can - should you?

McConnel said yes. YOU lot said HELL YES (but - change the rules again in 2020).

Look, in post 156 you changed it to read:

" McConnel by his actions, has clearly said yes. "

So which one was it?

Why don't you post a link so we can see ourselves...?

She lies so much she can't possibly keep up with them.

 

[j-mac]

I really hope so...I've never seen such corruption of our normally non-political institutions in my life time. If the only thing a Biden win accomplishes is the cleaning up and de-politicizing, and the restoring of norms, rules of behavior...it will be more than enough.

Cleaning up Trump's filthy swamp.

To me, if they pack the court w/10 or more SCOTUS I'd be ecstatic.

I'm extremely conflicted on that frankly. I'm so angry at what McConnell did, denying Obama his right to fill a vacancy, then flipping it around in 2020 that I want to say - why SHOULDN'T the Dems do this? Y'all started a precedent of upping the ante you deserve the fall out from it. But the thing is, I don't think it's good for the country. Very conflicted.

Mitch didn't deny Barry's right to anything, Dummy.

Barry nominated someone. That's where his rights end.

And the Dems would be perfectly within their legal rights to pack the courts.

The question, as always, is just because you can - should you?

McConnel said yes. YOU lot said HELL YES (but - change the rules again in 2020).

Don't whine if you lose and the Dems do this.

Precedents. Elections have consequences. And all that crap you spout every other week to justify setting bad precedents for political power gains.

Show me where McConnell said he wants to "pack the courts". He has never said anything about wanting to add justices to the SC.

Show me where I said he wanted to.

You can't keep up with what you posted just minutes ago?

And the Dems would be perfectly within their legal rights to pack the courts.

The question, as always, is just because you can - should you?

McConnel said yes.

Thanks for proving to us once again that, not only can you not read, you miss the general point.

Just because you can do something (in a discussion involving multiple actions setting precedents) - should you?

McConnel by his actions, has clearly said yes.

Now it's "by his actions"??????????????????????

When did Mitch pack the SC, Dummy?

Your lies are piling up here.

Not my fault you have reading issues dude. The fact that you remove part of the quote kinda indicates the thinness of the ice under your feet.

The question, as always, is just because you can - should you? The "change the rules in 2020" ought to clue you in as to context, but that was apparently a bridge too far. Now go take your nap or do something equally productive.

McConnel said yes. YOU lot said HELL YES (but - change the rules again in 2020).

I just handed you your dimpled ass. Show us the Quote from McConnell saying 'Yes' to packing the SC.

Back up your bullshit.

GO!

He/she won't do it...He/she is already running away...

 

[meaner gene]

One way or the other, you lied about where the tax return leaks came from.

You can't prove I'm wrong, Dummy.

I just did. The leaks either came from the Manhattan DA, which makes you wrong that they didn't.

Or they didn't come from the Manhattan DA, which make you wrong that they did.

 

[j-mac]

One way or the other, you lied about where the tax return leaks came from.

You can't prove I'm wrong, Dummy.

I just did. The leaks either came from the Manhattan DA, which makes you wrong that they didn't.

Or they didn't come from the Manhattan DA, which make you wrong that they did.

Or it was just made up out of whole cloth....This is what you people do...

 

[meaner gene]

The dumb is strong in this one. He's barely treading water.

Nostra handed me a slow pitch right down the center.

He said the Trump tax leak came from the Manhattan DA, before he said that Trump tax leak didn't come from the Manhattan DA.

He made a claim, and then refuted that claim in his next post.

That's when I hit it out of the park.

 

[meaner gene]

Or it was just made up out of whole cloth....This is what you people do...

Then Nostra lied when he said that was where the leak came from.

YOu are saying the NY DA hasn't seen Trump's tax returns yet, but anonymous sources in that office have leaked the contents of Trump's tax returns to the Fake News NYTs?