DOJ won't prosecute AG Garland for contempt for refusal to turn over audio from Biden, Hur interview

[Marener]

TRUMP LOL

LOL Not even going to try and come up with some bullshit as to what your cult leader meant, other than telling his cultists to do whatever necessary to stop Trump. Smart move.

"I’m making sure he, under legitimate efforts of our Constitution, does not become the next President again.”

Such a fowl mouth. When did you become such a poppy head?

I win.

Have a nice day.

 

[Rawley]

Such a fowl mouth. When did you become such a poppy head?

I win.

Have a nice day.

Smart move.

 

[Marener]

Smart move.

Always is when you’re talking to someone delusional like you. You can never talk them out of their false beliefs. Thats what makes them delusions.

 

[Rawley]

Always is when you’re talking to someone delusional like you. You can never talk them out of their false beliefs. Thats what makes them delusions.

You asked for link where your cult leader instructed his followers to go after Trump.

"I’m making sure he, under legitimate efforts of our Constitution, does not become the next President again.”

Short of "Merrick, Alan, Fani, indict that orange motherfucker" hard to image any instruction more explicit. Hell, even a hardcore propagandist/apologist such as yourself can't explain it away

Absurdly withholding this audio is another clear example of Garland's election interference.

 

[Marener]

hard to image any instruction more explicit

What an absurd thing to say. You can’t “imagine” it because you’re delusional.

 

[Rawley]

What an absurd thing to say. You can’t “imagine” it because you’re delusional.

If you won't even try and discuss your cult leader's words, what is the point.

Have a blessed day.

 

[Marener]

If you won't even try and discuss your cult leader's words, what is the point.

I won’t attempt to read something that is clearly not there.

It’s a very vague statement so you attributed meaning that is not there because that’s what the propaganda primed you to believe.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

If you won't even try and discuss your cult leader's words, what is the point.

Have a blessed day.

Marener punts Rawley away.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well they held him in contempt by 1 vote, hardly a rousing condemnation. If you are going to hold the AG of the United States in contempt of Congress then gather more than a measly 1 vote majority FFS. This shit is becoming a joke. Yeah he's a worm and a POS Democrat but you need something a lot stronger than this to hold the AG in contempt and convict. They have the tape transcript, they didn't get the recording. Get over it clowns. Stop wasting my tax dollars.

That is because of the razor thin majority the Republican have in the House. But the vote was 216 to 207. One Republican voted no, These contempt of congress things that used to be extremely rare have become commonplace more recently in a government more focused on warfare than anything else.

When Pelosi's House held Bill Barr in contempt in 2019, that vote was also along party lines.

It will be interesting to see if Garland has that Hur/Biden tape erased or altered or just disappeared before Trump and the GOP can gain power in 2025 and see what is on it.

 

[forkup]

Yes, but Congress has to prove its 'legislative intent,' which will be far more than just stating it.

No, they don't. They simply have to be able to articulate legislative intent. What the request will almost certainly fail on is that they have to be able to also articulate why they require the tape in order to conduct oversight. "We don't believe Hurr when he says the transcript has no material difference from the tape" will not cut it.

My point is not, and never has been that the DOJ has a legal obligation to give the tape. My point is that they should give the tape on the principle that Democrats ARE willing to subject themselves to oversight as long as that oversight does not actively hamper the presidential duties. Getting reelected is not a presidential duty but a personal one.

I understand it's completely unfair to insist on playing chess while the only thing the other side wants is to simply crap on the board. And it sticks in my craw too. But the sad truth is that someone has to be a grownup, if there's any chance of ever having a working political system. Since there's only 2 options for that role and 1 of the 2 is completely uninterested that kind of limits it.

 

[Godboy]

If you believe the polls, then you'd have to believe that Trump had no chance of winning the 2016 election, and that he only 'won' due to massive election fraud.

I believe in a simple fact... Trump has ALWAYS outperformed what the polls showed.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

No, they don't. They simply have to be able to articulate legal intent. What the request will almost certainly fail on is that they have to be able to also articulate why they require the tape in order to conduct oversight. "We don't believe Hurr when he says the transcript has no material difference from the tape" will not cut it.

My point is not, and never has been that the DOJ has a legal obligation to give the tape. My point is that they should give the tape on the principle that Democrats ARE willing to subject themselves to oversight as long as that oversight does not actively hamper the presidential duties. Getting reelected is not a presidential duty but a personal one.

I understand it's completely unfair to insist on playing chess while the only thing the other side wants is to simply crap on the board. And it sticks in my craw too. But the sad truth is that someone has to be a grownup, if there's any chance of ever having a working political system. Since there's only 2 options for that role and 1 of the 2 is completely uninterested that kind of limits it.

Yes, it does: "legislative intent", not legal intent. And your principles are immaterial to the discussion,

 

[forkup]

Yes, it does: "legislative intent", not legal intent. And your principles are immaterial to the discussion,

I corrected the error. And I think considering the ultimate consequences of rejecting congressional oversight is highly relevant.

.
this is almost certainly demanded in bad faith. The problem is that bad faith can be assumed in every oversight case. So, if that's an assumption you can make to get out of showing damaging information, it's better to simply give up on the concept of congressional oversight altogether.

Is that really what you want? A world where there are little to no actual tools for the legislative branch to conduct oversight on the executive branch?

 

[Dante]

Try reading the Constitution, it's the same oversight powers Democrats used in Trump investigations. Next.

Try reading the indictments, the trial transcripts and the jury's verdicts.

 

[Dante]

Try reading the Constitution, it's the same oversight powers Democrats used in Trump investigations. Next.

List the part(s). In the US Constitution. Give us all a bs story about how are up on the separation of powers.

 

[Couchpotato]

Public perfection of the economy and the actual state of the economy are not the same thing.

But you guys have given up arguing facts and instead celebrating that you’ve successfully shaped perception independent of facts.

Individuals perception of the economy is probably based on their experience with the economy not something someone told them about the economy. It's why the admin yelling at people telling them how great the economy is, doesn't work. If you already owned a house, car, and had assets sure this economy is fine. Your house is worth alot more, you probably have enough money that you can absorb inflationary costs etc. If you aren't one of those people this economy is shit. You have no chance at purchasing a house, cars are more and more out of reach due to their cost and interest rates, you don't have spare money to save/invest due to inflation. And before you come on here saying that's all propaganda look at who Biden is losing support with. It's not old people.

 

[Marener]

Individuals perception of the economy is probably based on their experience with the economy not something someone told them about the economy

Not nearly as much as you’d think.

 

[Couchpotato]

List the part(s). In the US Constitution. Give us all a bs story about how are up on the separation of powers.

Congressional oversight powers are a well established implied power from the Constitution.

Congressional oversight - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

One that you didn't have an issue with until 5 minutes ago when it expose a political candidate you favor.

 

[Couchpotato]

Not nearly as much as you’d think.

That's compelling. Got a link for that?

So you think all these people who are rating the economy as not good are all doing fantastic but are polling that way because they heard on Foxnews that the economy was bad?

 

[Dante]

Congressional oversight powers are a well established implied power from the Constitution.

Congressional oversight - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

One that you didn't have an issue with until 5 minutes ago when it expose a political candidate you favor.

And Garland has not refuted that. so, please allow us all to know your arguments.