We Could Have Saved Two Years Worth Of Posts!

[Yousaidwhat]

“1. FBI Officials Admit They Spied On Trump Campaign
The New York Times‘ story, headlined “Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation,” is a dry and gentle account of the FBI’s launch of extensive surveillance of affiliates of the Trump campaign.

Somehow, this does not strike me as subversive:
Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation

At least they chose a classic tune.

"Deep Throat" was already appropriated.

 

[ViewFromAbove]

The Democrat's playbook is now keep this going until the 2020 Re-election. It makes great coffee table talk. And it drives both sides batty. They enjoy when both sides collide in the huge political arena.

C'mon.....the Democrats have far more important items on their agenda:

The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism…

You appear very partisan AND extreme in your conclusions, if you're not flippant.
I think BOTH parties and others prefer to give respect to DECENT people regardless of race, pay taxes only if they contribute effectively to the common social good, value ALL speech that's not harmful, etc.
You can spin, and you can spin, and it shows your partisan colors.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Oh no, you are not as free as someone that grew up in 1956 or so, oh hell no!

How right you are. We are no longer free to drink toxic water or die being thrown around in a smashed car or break our necks on motorcycle accidents. Kids can no longer burn to death in flammable clothing or nibble lead paint. Kids also will not die early from smokestack output and breathe in asbestos. Gee, those were the good old days!

They piss and moan about Trump keeping them free Americans instead of slaves,

Really? Like denying the legislative branch the authority built in by our FF as he refuses to answer summons and subpoenas for both himself and anyone else that can finger him? By appointing a consigliari? That's not keeping Americans free. That's keeping himself and his family free from what you and I would go to jail for, like Manafort and Cohen.

You've earned another funny, bullwinkle. Relying on Huffpost lately?

I know, old friend. You think it can't happen here.

It can, and the Democrats are falling all over themselves trying to make it so.

It can, and the Democrats are falling all over themselves trying to make it so.

It isn't the Democrats that give an applause-filled pass to the guy who decides which laws he will ignore.

Ri-iiiiight. Nadler gets applause for trying to force Barr into breaking federal law.

Barr won't, but he will break Nadler. Watch and see.

 

[Mortis]

You appear very partisan AND extreme in your conclusions, if you're not flippant.
I think BOTH parties and others prefer to give respect to DECENT people regardless of race, pay taxes only if they contribute effectively to the common social good, value ALL speech that's not harmful, etc.
You can spin, and you can spin, and it shows your partisan colors.

You are correct! I wouldn't be in any other way.

"You can spin, and you can spin, and it shows your partisan colors."

You can take it each way you want. And that's no spin.

 

[bullwinkle]

What fed law is the most

How right you are. We are no longer free to drink toxic water or die being thrown around in a smashed car or break our necks on motorcycle accidents. Kids can no longer burn to death in flammable clothing or nibble lead paint. Kids also will not die early from smokestack output and breathe in asbestos. Gee, those were the good old days!
Really? Like denying the legislative branch the authority built in by our FF as he refuses to answer summons and subpoenas for both himself and anyone else that can finger him? By appointing a consigliari? That's not keeping Americans free. That's keeping himself and his family free from what you and I would go to jail for, like Manafort and Cohen.

You've earned another funny, bullwinkle. Relying on Huffpost lately?

I know, old friend. You think it can't happen here.

It can, and the Democrats are falling all over themselves trying to make it so.

It can, and the Democrats are falling all over themselves trying to make it so.

It isn't the Democrats that give an applause-filled pass to the guy who decides which laws he will ignore.

Ri-iiiiight. Nadler gets applause for trying to force Barr into breaking federal law.

Barr won't, but he will break Nadler. Watch and see.

What law is is that Barr is holding firm defending while Nadler harangues Barr to break?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

What fed law is the most

You've earned another funny, bullwinkle. Relying on Huffpost lately?

I know, old friend. You think it can't happen here.

It can, and the Democrats are falling all over themselves trying to make it so.

It can, and the Democrats are falling all over themselves trying to make it so.

It isn't the Democrats that give an applause-filled pass to the guy who decides which laws he will ignore.

Ri-iiiiight. Nadler gets applause for trying to force Barr into breaking federal law.

Barr won't, but he will break Nadler. Watch and see.

What law is is that Barr is holding firm defending while Nadler harangues Barr to break?

If you don't know, why are you making judgments on Barr?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Democrat's playbook is now keep this going until the 2020 Re-election. It makes great coffee table talk. And it drives both sides batty. They enjoy when both sides collide in the huge political arena.

C'mon.....the Democrats have far more important items on their agenda:

The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism…

You appear very partisan AND extreme in your conclusions, if you're not flippant.
I think BOTH parties and others prefer to give respect to DECENT people regardless of race, pay taxes only if they contribute effectively to the common social good, value ALL speech that's not harmful, etc.
You can spin, and you can spin, and it shows your partisan colors.

Welcome to the board.

Let me suggest a point that will make your time here smoother.

Focus like a laser: point out that with which you disagree, and prove you are right.

Use quotes, links and source your material....show where your views are correct.




Which part(s) of this statement are you prepared to deny?
The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism…



I can prove every bit of it.


Oh....and BTW.....try not to be a fool, as it will cost you.

 

[bullwinkle]

What fed law is the most

I know, old friend. You think it can't happen here.

It can, and the Democrats are falling all over themselves trying to make it so.

It can, and the Democrats are falling all over themselves trying to make it so.

It isn't the Democrats that give an applause-filled pass to the guy who decides which laws he will ignore.

Ri-iiiiight. Nadler gets applause for trying to force Barr into breaking federal law.

Barr won't, but he will break Nadler. Watch and see.

What law is is that Barr is holding firm defending while Nadler harangues Barr to break?

If you don't know, why are you making judgments on Barr?

Billy, I'm trying to figure why YOU think Nadler is trying to force Barr to break the law. If I knew, I wouldn't ask. It looks to me like a massive (and in-your-face transparent) cover up with all kinds of excuses and legal shenanigans tossed against the wall for loyal Trumpbots to grab and hold as rationale for their effort to contort checks and balances.

 

[bullwinkle]

Oh....and BTW.....try not to be a fool, as it will cost you.

NO it wont..it hasn't stopped you!

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

What fed law is the most

It can, and the Democrats are falling all over themselves trying to make it so.

It can, and the Democrats are falling all over themselves trying to make it so.

It isn't the Democrats that give an applause-filled pass to the guy who decides which laws he will ignore.

Ri-iiiiight. Nadler gets applause for trying to force Barr into breaking federal law.

Barr won't, but he will break Nadler. Watch and see.

What law is is that Barr is holding firm defending while Nadler harangues Barr to break?

If you don't know, why are you making judgments on Barr?

Billy, I'm trying to figure why YOU think Nadler is trying to force Barr to break the law. If I knew, I wouldn't ask. It looks to me like a massive (and in-your-face transparent) cover up with all kinds of excuses and legal shenanigans tossed against the wall for loyal Trumpbots to grab and hold as rationale for their effort to contort checks and balances.

He can't release details about individuals connected to the investigation who have not been charged with any crime, anything about ongoing investigations, classified materials, disputes among prosecutors as to the meaning of the law, or about any Grand Jury.

 

[bullwinkle]

What fed law is the most

It isn't the Democrats that give an applause-filled pass to the guy who decides which laws he will ignore.

Ri-iiiiight. Nadler gets applause for trying to force Barr into breaking federal law.

Barr won't, but he will break Nadler. Watch and see.

What law is is that Barr is holding firm defending while Nadler harangues Barr to break?

If you don't know, why are you making judgments on Barr?

Billy, I'm trying to figure why YOU think Nadler is trying to force Barr to break the law. If I knew, I wouldn't ask. It looks to me like a massive (and in-your-face transparent) cover up with all kinds of excuses and legal shenanigans tossed against the wall for loyal Trumpbots to grab and hold as rationale for their effort to contort checks and balances.

He can't release details about individuals connected to the investigation who have not been charged with any crime, anything about ongoing investigations, classified materials, disputes among prosecutors as to the meaning of the law, or about any Grand Jury.

Nadler knows that. I am not very familiar with the laws we are talking about, but I am convinced there are avenues to pursue. You do remember Ken Starr I presume. He went to court before he presented his findings to Congress for permission to release redacted or Grand Jury data. Then he presented everything to Congress, not Janet Reno, including his notes. Seems like you were fine with that. And I also know you are smart enough to recognize a diversionary smokescreen. Besides, what's to fear, what's to hide? Your guy is pure as the driven snow, so I hear from those of you so enamored by his sterling rhetoric.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

What fed law is the most

Ri-iiiiight. Nadler gets applause for trying to force Barr into breaking federal law.

Barr won't, but he will break Nadler. Watch and see.

What law is is that Barr is holding firm defending while Nadler harangues Barr to break?

If you don't know, why are you making judgments on Barr?

Billy, I'm trying to figure why YOU think Nadler is trying to force Barr to break the law. If I knew, I wouldn't ask. It looks to me like a massive (and in-your-face transparent) cover up with all kinds of excuses and legal shenanigans tossed against the wall for loyal Trumpbots to grab and hold as rationale for their effort to contort checks and balances.

He can't release details about individuals connected to the investigation who have not been charged with any crime, anything about ongoing investigations, classified materials, disputes among prosecutors as to the meaning of the law, or about any Grand Jury.

Nadler knows that. I am not very familiar with the laws we are talking about, but I am convinced there are avenues to pursue. You do remember Ken Starr I presume. He went to court before he presented his findings to Congress for permission to release redacted or Grand Jury data. Then he presented everything to Congress, not Janet Reno, including his notes. Seems like you were fine with that. And I also know you are smart enough to recognize a diversionary smokescreen. Besides, what's to fear, what's to hide? Your guy is pure as the driven snow, so I hear from those of you so enamored by his sterling rhetoric.

Nadler has no authority over the matter. He hasn't even glanced at what HAS been provided.

Barr could go to court over the redacted material, but chooses not to engage in the Democrats' political side show.

It's not fear, it's disdain.

 

[ViewFromAbove]

The Democrat's playbook is now keep this going until the 2020 Re-election. It makes great coffee table talk. And it drives both sides batty. They enjoy when both sides collide in the huge political arena.

C'mon.....the Democrats have far more important items on their agenda:

The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism…

You appear very partisan AND extreme in your conclusions, if you're not flippant.
I think BOTH parties and others prefer to give respect to DECENT people regardless of race, pay taxes only if they contribute effectively to the common social good, value ALL speech that's not harmful, etc.
You can spin, and you can spin, and it shows your partisan colors.

Welcome to the board.

Let me suggest a point that will make your time here smoother.

Focus like a laser: point out that with which you disagree, and prove you are right.

Use quotes, links and source your material....show where your views are correct.




Which part(s) of this statement are you prepared to deny?
The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism…



I can prove every bit of it.


Oh....and BTW.....try not to be a fool, as it will cost you.

"The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech"

YOUR above statement is very general, extreme, and demonstrates your partisan spinning.
Ok, let's go with YOUR recommendation:
"Use quotes, links and source your material....show where your views are correct".

Show us where the DEMOCRATIC PARTY is racist against white people, are for infanticide, and/or are opposed to free speech.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Democrat's playbook is now keep this going until the 2020 Re-election. It makes great coffee table talk. And it drives both sides batty. They enjoy when both sides collide in the huge political arena.

C'mon.....the Democrats have far more important items on their agenda:

The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism…

You appear very partisan AND extreme in your conclusions, if you're not flippant.
I think BOTH parties and others prefer to give respect to DECENT people regardless of race, pay taxes only if they contribute effectively to the common social good, value ALL speech that's not harmful, etc.
You can spin, and you can spin, and it shows your partisan colors.

Welcome to the board.

Let me suggest a point that will make your time here smoother.

Focus like a laser: point out that with which you disagree, and prove you are right.

Use quotes, links and source your material....show where your views are correct.




Which part(s) of this statement are you prepared to deny?
The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism…



I can prove every bit of it.


Oh....and BTW.....try not to be a fool, as it will cost you.

"The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech"

YOUR above statement is very general, extreme, and demonstrates your partisan spinning.
Ok, let's go with YOUR recommendation:
"Use quotes, links and source your material....show where your views are correct".

Show us where the DEMOCRATIC PARTY is racist against white people, are for infanticide, and/or are opposed to free speech.

Did you just use "us" when you mean "me"???

Why????

Are you too cowardly to stand on your own....of do you have a tapeworm?


I told you not to be a fool.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Democrat's playbook is now keep this going until the 2020 Re-election. It makes great coffee table talk. And it drives both sides batty. They enjoy when both sides collide in the huge political arena.

C'mon.....the Democrats have far more important items on their agenda:

The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism…

You appear very partisan AND extreme in your conclusions, if you're not flippant.
I think BOTH parties and others prefer to give respect to DECENT people regardless of race, pay taxes only if they contribute effectively to the common social good, value ALL speech that's not harmful, etc.
You can spin, and you can spin, and it shows your partisan colors.

Welcome to the board.

Let me suggest a point that will make your time here smoother.

Focus like a laser: point out that with which you disagree, and prove you are right.

Use quotes, links and source your material....show where your views are correct.




Which part(s) of this statement are you prepared to deny?
The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism…



I can prove every bit of it.


Oh....and BTW.....try not to be a fool, as it will cost you.

"The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech"

YOUR above statement is very general, extreme, and demonstrates your partisan spinning.
Ok, let's go with YOUR recommendation:
"Use quotes, links and source your material....show where your views are correct".

Show us where the DEMOCRATIC PARTY is racist against white people, are for infanticide, and/or are opposed to free speech.

It’s Not ‘Identity Politics,’ It’s Anti-White Politics

It’s Not ‘Identity Politics,’ It’s Anti-White Politics



"With Thomas Perez As DNC Chairthing, Democrats Go Full Anti-White

… Mr. Perez is a dedicated Social Justice Warrior, a key enforcer of the Obama administration’s anti-white programswhen serving in key positions in the Justice Department and the Department of Labor across almost all of the eight Obama years."
With Thomas Perez As DNC Chairthing, Democrats Go Full Anti-White



“White men are now the Democratic Party's punching bag. That's a dangerous bet to make.” White men are now the Democratic Party's punching bag. That's a dangerous bet to make.



In your face, booooyyyyyeeeeeeee!!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Democrat's playbook is now keep this going until the 2020 Re-election. It makes great coffee table talk. And it drives both sides batty. They enjoy when both sides collide in the huge political arena.

C'mon.....the Democrats have far more important items on their agenda:

The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism…

You appear very partisan AND extreme in your conclusions, if you're not flippant.
I think BOTH parties and others prefer to give respect to DECENT people regardless of race, pay taxes only if they contribute effectively to the common social good, value ALL speech that's not harmful, etc.
You can spin, and you can spin, and it shows your partisan colors.

Welcome to the board.

Let me suggest a point that will make your time here smoother.

Focus like a laser: point out that with which you disagree, and prove you are right.

Use quotes, links and source your material....show where your views are correct.




Which part(s) of this statement are you prepared to deny?
The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism…



I can prove every bit of it.


Oh....and BTW.....try not to be a fool, as it will cost you.

"The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech"

YOUR above statement is very general, extreme, and demonstrates your partisan spinning.
Ok, let's go with YOUR recommendation:
"Use quotes, links and source your material....show where your views are correct".

Show us where the DEMOCRATIC PARTY is racist against white people, are for infanticide, and/or are opposed to free speech.

1. Hussein Obama supported infanticide.

2. Obama named Peter Singer, champion of infanticide, as his 'science adviser.'

3. The Democrat administration in Virginia offered a law for...in favor of....infanticide....stopped by Republicans.

4. The Democrat governor of Virginia agreed with the bill for infanticide.

5. "New York abortion law changes allow infanticide"
New York abortion law changes allow infanticide

6. "Anti-infanticide bill blocked by Senate Democrats"
Anti-infanticide bill blocked by Senate Democrats





How easy to prove you as dumb as asphalt, huh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Democrat's playbook is now keep this going until the 2020 Re-election. It makes great coffee table talk. And it drives both sides batty. They enjoy when both sides collide in the huge political arena.

C'mon.....the Democrats have far more important items on their agenda:

The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism…

You appear very partisan AND extreme in your conclusions, if you're not flippant.
I think BOTH parties and others prefer to give respect to DECENT people regardless of race, pay taxes only if they contribute effectively to the common social good, value ALL speech that's not harmful, etc.
You can spin, and you can spin, and it shows your partisan colors.

Welcome to the board.

Let me suggest a point that will make your time here smoother.

Focus like a laser: point out that with which you disagree, and prove you are right.

Use quotes, links and source your material....show where your views are correct.




Which part(s) of this statement are you prepared to deny?
The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism…



I can prove every bit of it.


Oh....and BTW.....try not to be a fool, as it will cost you.

"The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech"

YOUR above statement is very general, extreme, and demonstrates your partisan spinning.
Ok, let's go with YOUR recommendation:
"Use quotes, links and source your material....show where your views are correct".

Show us where the DEMOCRATIC PARTY is racist against white people, are for infanticide, and/or are opposed to free speech.

Watch this, dope:



What could be more American than the first amendment????

“Trump And Universities In Fight Over Free Speech, Federal Research Funding
His executive orderconditions research funding on "compliance with the First Amendment" and directs federal agencies to ensure that institutions receiving federal research or education grants "promote free inquiry."”
Trump And Universities In Fight Over Free Speech, Federal Research Funding





What could be less American than Democrats endorsing censorship of individual’s freedom of speech?

"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, [Democrat Elena] Kagan writes:

"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."

In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"

Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?

Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia





“Earlier this week, Obama-appointed Supreme Court Justice [Democrat] Elena Kagan wrote in her minority dissent to the Janus ruling that the Court had “weaponized the First Amendment.”

The majority opinion dwelt on issues of compelled speech, noting that “because such compulsion so plainly violates the Constitution, most of our free speech cases have involved restrictions on what can be said, rather than laws compelling speech. But measures compelling speech are at least as threatening.”

Kagan, however, has other ideas and claimed in her dissent that

“The First Amendment was meant for better things,” she concluded.

Kagan’s fantastical notion of “black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices” by “weaponizing the First Amendment” is puzzling. Citizens in non-right-to-work states are completely free to join a union if they so wish, and in doing so, commit to paying union dues. The only change here is that unions can no longer extort dues from non-members in any state.

Citizens’ choices have not been overridden; indeed, citizen choice is expanded under this ruling. They can join a union or not join a union, those who do not join cannot be compelled to pay union dues, but they are also not barred from doing so if they wish.

Her point about “weaponizing the First Amendment” is equally confounding. The Founders intendedthe First Amendment to be a weapon . . . against government tyranny and oppression. They were insistent that freedom of speech was required to check government and to maintain a free and independent citizenry.” Who's afraid of the 1st Amendment?





BTW, this Democrat star Kagan has been guilty of lying, and fraud as well as opposing free speech.


…the Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism.




So, tool, how do you feel having proven that I am never wrong?

 

[bullwinkle]

What fed law is the most
What law is is that Barr is holding firm defending while Nadler harangues Barr to break?

If you don't know, why are you making judgments on Barr?

Billy, I'm trying to figure why YOU think Nadler is trying to force Barr to break the law. If I knew, I wouldn't ask. It looks to me like a massive (and in-your-face transparent) cover up with all kinds of excuses and legal shenanigans tossed against the wall for loyal Trumpbots to grab and hold as rationale for their effort to contort checks and balances.

He can't release details about individuals connected to the investigation who have not been charged with any crime, anything about ongoing investigations, classified materials, disputes among prosecutors as to the meaning of the law, or about any Grand Jury.

Nadler knows that. I am not very familiar with the laws we are talking about, but I am convinced there are avenues to pursue. You do remember Ken Starr I presume. He went to court before he presented his findings to Congress for permission to release redacted or Grand Jury data. Then he presented everything to Congress, not Janet Reno, including his notes. Seems like you were fine with that. And I also know you are smart enough to recognize a diversionary smokescreen. Besides, what's to fear, what's to hide? Your guy is pure as the driven snow, so I hear from those of you so enamored by his sterling rhetoric.

Nadler has no authority over the matter. He hasn't even glanced at what HAS been provided.

Barr could go to court over the redacted material, but chooses not to engage in the Democrats' political side show.

It's not fear, it's disdain.

No, billy, Barr channels Trump's fear that he unsuccessfully disguises as disdain. And time will soon tell what authority Nadler has. As for Nadler's 'hasn't even glanced at what's been provided', that's a pipe dream. Of course he has. That's why he is complaining and wants further. And if we were talking anyone else, you wouldn't be satisfied with the obvious cover-up either. BTW, what's you opinion of the 500 prosecutors that wrote to Barr condemning his conclusions?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

If you don't know, why are you making judgments on Barr?

Billy, I'm trying to figure why YOU think Nadler is trying to force Barr to break the law. If I knew, I wouldn't ask. It looks to me like a massive (and in-your-face transparent) cover up with all kinds of excuses and legal shenanigans tossed against the wall for loyal Trumpbots to grab and hold as rationale for their effort to contort checks and balances.

He can't release details about individuals connected to the investigation who have not been charged with any crime, anything about ongoing investigations, classified materials, disputes among prosecutors as to the meaning of the law, or about any Grand Jury.

Nadler knows that. I am not very familiar with the laws we are talking about, but I am convinced there are avenues to pursue. You do remember Ken Starr I presume. He went to court before he presented his findings to Congress for permission to release redacted or Grand Jury data. Then he presented everything to Congress, not Janet Reno, including his notes. Seems like you were fine with that. And I also know you are smart enough to recognize a diversionary smokescreen. Besides, what's to fear, what's to hide? Your guy is pure as the driven snow, so I hear from those of you so enamored by his sterling rhetoric.

Nadler has no authority over the matter. He hasn't even glanced at what HAS been provided.

Barr could go to court over the redacted material, but chooses not to engage in the Democrats' political side show.

It's not fear, it's disdain.

No, billy, Barr channels Trump's fear that he unsuccessfully disguises as disdain. And time will soon tell what authority Nadler has. As for Nadler's 'hasn't even glanced at what's been provided', that's a pipe dream. Of course he has. That's why he is complaining and wants further. And if we were talking anyone else, you wouldn't be satisfied with the obvious cover-up either. BTW, what's you opinion of the 500 prosecutors that wrote to Barr condemning his conclusions?

You're piling them up this week, bw.

I have no particular opinion of them. They are of no consequence.

 

[bullwinkle]

Billy, I'm trying to figure why YOU think Nadler is trying to force Barr to break the law. If I knew, I wouldn't ask. It looks to me like a massive (and in-your-face transparent) cover up with all kinds of excuses and legal shenanigans tossed against the wall for loyal Trumpbots to grab and hold as rationale for their effort to contort checks and balances.

He can't release details about individuals connected to the investigation who have not been charged with any crime, anything about ongoing investigations, classified materials, disputes among prosecutors as to the meaning of the law, or about any Grand Jury.

Nadler knows that. I am not very familiar with the laws we are talking about, but I am convinced there are avenues to pursue. You do remember Ken Starr I presume. He went to court before he presented his findings to Congress for permission to release redacted or Grand Jury data. Then he presented everything to Congress, not Janet Reno, including his notes. Seems like you were fine with that. And I also know you are smart enough to recognize a diversionary smokescreen. Besides, what's to fear, what's to hide? Your guy is pure as the driven snow, so I hear from those of you so enamored by his sterling rhetoric.

Nadler has no authority over the matter. He hasn't even glanced at what HAS been provided.

Barr could go to court over the redacted material, but chooses not to engage in the Democrats' political side show.

It's not fear, it's disdain.

No, billy, Barr channels Trump's fear that he unsuccessfully disguises as disdain. And time will soon tell what authority Nadler has. As for Nadler's 'hasn't even glanced at what's been provided', that's a pipe dream. Of course he has. That's why he is complaining and wants further. And if we were talking anyone else, you wouldn't be satisfied with the obvious cover-up either. BTW, what's you opinion of the 500 prosecutors that wrote to Barr condemning his conclusions?

You're piling them up this week, bw.

I have no particular opinion of them. They are of no consequence.

Nah, you've gone round the bend. I know a 'funny' rating is as close as you can get to a 'yer nuts' rating, so I get your meaning though.

This thread has run it's course. We'll take up the battle on another subject on another day. Be well!