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

[Marener]

what propaganda? when you can't explain it, it isn't propaganda. 22% increase in grocery stores since 2020!!! Fact! gas prices since jan 2021 hit a high of 7.00 a gallon!!!!!! that isn't propaganda! To state in here that those items are propaganda is the highest form of PROPAGANDA!!! and demofks are kings of PROPAGANDA!!!!

Most of you right wingers think that GDP growth is negative. That unemployment is going up. That the rate of inflation is worsening.

 

[jc456]

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 don't believe any poll. EVER!!!!

 

[Marener]

yeah cause that information is publicly available.

So you made it up.

More propaganda.

 

[jc456]

Most of you right wingers think that GDP growth is negative. That unemployment is going up. That the rate of inflation is worsening.

dude, I didn't say shit about GDP. why the fk did you? respond to my post asshole!!!

 

[jc456]

So you made it up.

More propaganda.

fk no. I answered you already, read it

 

[Rawley]

That’s nice. Where is Biden instructing Garland to indict him?

So you can move the goal posts again? LOL.

He's saying this shit in public

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

it ain't hard to figure out what he's saying in private.

 

[Marener]

So you can move the goal posts again?

I didn’t change anything about my request. You just failed to deliver.

 

[Marener]

fk no. I answered you already, read it

Yes. Your answer says you don’t have anything, you just made it up.

Because it’s what you want to believe.

 

[Marener]

dude, I didn't say shit about GDP. why the fk did you? respond to my post asshole!!!

This isn’t about you dipshit.

 

[Rawley]

I didn’t change anything about my request. You just failed to deliver.

LOL "Link to when Biden instructed Garland to go after anyone?" morphed into "Where is Biden instructing Garland to indict him?

Hard to get more explicit order than your cult leaders instruction "I’m making sure he, under legitimate efforts of our Constitution, does not become the next President again.”

So what did your cult leader mean by that? Deal with his actual words rather nitpicking at me. How was Biden making sure Trump never became President again? What actions what he contemplating?

 

[forkup]

Aside from breaking with precedent regarding EP claims by the WH? Once the Repubs have kicked that door down there will be no end to the cycle of making unreasonable, unnecessary requests for protected material with the goal being the political act of holding a member of the admin in contempt. Further weaponizing the House.

I think EP is interpreted to broadly to begin with. So, the "precedent" argument doesn't really impress me. Even more because using the word precedent instead of simply tit for tat as I did, is just a nicer word for retaliation. That is NOT how you break the cycle.

Executive privilege does have a real and honest to God purpose for the president, shielding deliberations between the president and his advisors on matters of State or foreign dignitaries is perfectly legitimate. Not releasing an interview, you have with a special counsel because they found classified documents in your possession you shouldn't have had, is much more dubious.

Again, I perfectly understand and agree, 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.

 

[forkup]

The ruling is congressional "legislative intent" needs to be met. Congress does not have the power to subpoena just because "I want to know."

I'm pretty sure they will claim the legislative intent is to see if the transcript matches the tape. In an oversight role, because this is essentially the executive branch investigating the Chief executive.

Just because you, me, and even Republicans also admit there's a political purpose doesn't mean you can simply make the determination they aren't demanding these documents for a legislative purpose. At its heart it's not some irrelevant little policy difference. It's an investigation if the sitting president mishandled classified information. Seems oversight from congress is perfectly legitimate in those circumstances. Even if we more than suspect it's done in bad faith.

 

[Marener]

Hard to get more explicit order than your cult leaders instruction

Nonsense. If you want explicit, see what Trump says. This quote says nothing about the DoJ or indictments and he wasn’t even speaking about Garland.

You’re seeing things that aren’t there because you’ve been primed to see them.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Your cult leader:

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

 

[forkup]

I strongly disagree that Option 2 is "more tranparent" given all of the fake videos the Trump Administration/Campaign has tried to use over the years.

Remember when Trump put out a video of Jim Accosta "assaulting" a White House intern, and stripped Accosta of his press pass? Original video provided by the networks proved that Trump's video had been "edited", and the Courts barred Trump from taking away Accosta's Press pass.

These people have a history of fake news (Birther movement, Hillary's emails, Uranium One, Biden Crime Family), to mask their own spiralling behaviour of character assassination and lies.

Special Prosecutor Investigations of Democrats ending with a finding that no crimes have been committed, no indictments are issued, nothing to see here. Special Prosecutor Investigations of Republicans ending with dozens of charges against senior Administration Officials, indictments, trials, criminal convictions.

Obama refused to charge outgoing Republican officials when he took office, saying the nation needed to heal, and he was blasted for it, which gave license to Trump to refuse to put his business in a blind trust, and to continue to do business with his own company while in the WH (see Cheney and Rumsfeld).

I didn't say more transparent. I said more in line in what the separation of powers should mean in practice.

Look this is the main argument I'm getting from you, Berg, and John Edgar. "We know the Republicans are making a demand of the Democrats in bad faith. We also know if the situation would be reversed, they wouldn't think of doing it themselves. Therefor Democrats shouldn't do it either."

And I agree with all of you in all it's particulars. Except that last sentence. I'm not naive. But to me it's simply doubling down on a bad argument. One that encourages behavior that WILL lead to 2 parties not interested in governing but simply retaliating against one another. Something I wouldn't even mind IF there's a principled stance behind it. "The other side are assholes" is not a policy position I recognize.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I'm pretty sure they will claim the legislative intent is to see if the transcript matches the tape. In an oversight role, because this is essentially the executive branch investigating the Chief executive.

Just because you, me, and even Republicans also admit there's a political purpose doesn't mean you can simply make the determination they aren't demanding these documents for a legislative purpose. At its heart it's not some irrelevant little policy difference. It's an investigation if the sitting president mishandled classified information. Seems oversight from congress is perfectly legitimate in those circumstances. Even if we more than suspect it's done in bad faith.

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

 

[jc456]

This isn’t about you dipshit.

it was my post!

 

[jc456]

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

yep and they will after they hear the audio. How else could they genius?

 

[Marener]

it was my post!

The discussion was about what the population believes, not you.

 

[Rawley]

Nonsense. If you want explicit, see what Trump says.

TRUMP LOL

This quote says nothing about the DoJ or indictments and he wasn’t even speaking about Garland.

You’re seeing things that aren’t there because you’ve been primed to see them.

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.”