Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Actually Barr will lie and obfuscate. I'd like to see Mueller testify.To which the only reply need be, "It's coming.
NO dimwit.......the ISSUE here is WHAT "is coming".....Sure something will be coming...but it CANNOT be what Trump's stooges determine we should know of the report.....
The quicksand will be when Barr is subpoenaed before a House committee
I think they want to get Barr on record first as having produced a report with only redactions based on natl security and protecting sources.Ac
Actually Barr will lie and obfuscate. I'd like to see Mueller testify.To which the only reply need be, "It's coming.
NO dimwit.......the ISSUE here is WHAT "is coming".....Sure something will be coming...but it CANNOT be what Trump's stooges determine we should know of the report.....
The quicksand will be when Barr is subpoenaed before a House committee
He won't lie for Trump
I didn’t ask you if you think it was unnecessary, nor did I ask you for s link to it.Huh? What in your post indicated you actually think the Starr investigation was wrong and unnecessary?So if it’s about sex, It can be released to the public but if it’s about national security the public should be kept in the dark?None.
Start’s Report was released almost immediately.
It’s time to decouple the DOJ from the Executive branch.
Your claims are silly since they are not even remotely comparable. For one thing the Grand Jury Testimony was not with Trump himself, but with others who are NOT likely charged with Election tampering, another thing are those classified sections in it, that are classified for a reason. Neither part can be released to the public since this report is about Trump and his campaign members. Meanwhile Clinton the SAME DAY of his Grand Jury testimony talked to the nation about it, which of course means he places no restriction on it being released in the Starr report, having already talked to the nation about it.
The Starr report was delivered straight to congress who sat on it for a couple days before releasing it to the public by overwhelming bipartisan yes vote. There was nothing in it to be legally required to be blanked out, which is why the whole report was released to the public. From Wikipedia:
"Originally dealing with the failed land deal years earlier known as Whitewater in 1994, Starr, with the approval of Attorney General of the United States Janet Reno, conducted a wide-ranging investigation of alleged abuses including the firing of White House travel agents, the alleged misuse of FBI files, and Clinton's conduct during the sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a former Arkansas government employee, Paula Jones. "
The report ended up being mostly about sex stuff.
This is NOT a legal precedence, because they are as different as night and day.
Oh...
You are simply too dumb to understand what I posted, I actually think the Starr investigation was wrong and unnecessary.
Here it is again that you must have skimmed over:
"For one thing the Grand Jury Testimony was not with Trump himself, but with others who are NOT likely charged with Election tampering, another thing are those classified sections in it, that are classified for a reason. Neither part can be released to the public since this report is about Trump and his campaign members. Meanwhile Clinton the SAME DAY of his Grand Jury testimony talked to the nation about it, which of course means he places no restriction on it being released in the Starr report, having already talked to the nation about it.
The Starr report was delivered straight to congress who sat on it for a couple days before releasing it to the public by overwhelming bipartisan yes vote. There was nothing in it to be legally required to be blanked out, which is why the whole report was released to the public."
They are NOT comparable investigations which you apparently know is true since you didn't dispute it.
I read parts of it years ago, which is why I think the whole thing was unnecessary, but here it is for YOU to read:
The Starr Report
LINK
I didn’t ask you if you think it was unnecessary, nor did I ask you for s link to it.Huh? What in your post indicated you actually think the Starr investigation was wrong and unnecessary?So if it’s about sex, It can be released to the public but if it’s about national security the public should be kept in the dark?Your claims are silly since they are not even remotely comparable. For one thing the Grand Jury Testimony was not with Trump himself, but with others who are NOT likely charged with Election tampering, another thing are those classified sections in it, that are classified for a reason. Neither part can be released to the public since this report is about Trump and his campaign members. Meanwhile Clinton the SAME DAY of his Grand Jury testimony talked to the nation about it, which of course means he places no restriction on it being released in the Starr report, having already talked to the nation about it.
The Starr report was delivered straight to congress who sat on it for a couple days before releasing it to the public by overwhelming bipartisan yes vote. There was nothing in it to be legally required to be blanked out, which is why the whole report was released to the public. From Wikipedia:
"Originally dealing with the failed land deal years earlier known as Whitewater in 1994, Starr, with the approval of Attorney General of the United States Janet Reno, conducted a wide-ranging investigation of alleged abuses including the firing of White House travel agents, the alleged misuse of FBI files, and Clinton's conduct during the sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a former Arkansas government employee, Paula Jones. "
The report ended up being mostly about sex stuff.
This is NOT a legal precedence, because they are as different as night and day.
Oh...
You are simply too dumb to understand what I posted, I actually think the Starr investigation was wrong and unnecessary.
Here it is again that you must have skimmed over:
"For one thing the Grand Jury Testimony was not with Trump himself, but with others who are NOT likely charged with Election tampering, another thing are those classified sections in it, that are classified for a reason. Neither part can be released to the public since this report is about Trump and his campaign members. Meanwhile Clinton the SAME DAY of his Grand Jury testimony talked to the nation about it, which of course means he places no restriction on it being released in the Starr report, having already talked to the nation about it.
The Starr report was delivered straight to congress who sat on it for a couple days before releasing it to the public by overwhelming bipartisan yes vote. There was nothing in it to be legally required to be blanked out, which is why the whole report was released to the public."
They are NOT comparable investigations which you apparently know is true since you didn't dispute it.
I read parts of it years ago, which is why I think the whole thing was unnecessary, but here it is for YOU to read:
The Starr Report
LINK
I asked you what in your previous post (#654) indicated you think it was unnecessary?
Then why did Donald say he was OK releasing it?
You're inferring that Donald doesn't know what he's talking about.
And I'd agree with you.
I'm just fucking with you. You're the one who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Link?With the appropriate caveat to members of Congress that names and methods of classified investigations NOT be revealed to the general public, what is the legal standing for Barr to not release the report? (of course, with the exception that Barr IS a Trump stooge appointed SPECIFICALLY to protect his cult leader.)
So, I ask again.....since Mueller's report was authorized by republicans and fully funded by all of us tax payers, what is the LEGAL PRECEDENT for the report to not be FULLY disclosed?
None.
Start’s Report was released almost immediately.
It’s time to decouple the DOJ from the Executive branch.
The laws have changed since then.
Because for one, there would be third parties named in the report who were not indicted. Yes, Barr was doing the right thing by trying to sort out the details before releasing. No matter what you say, that is completely within the law, but now after 2 years the Dems are suddenly all out of patience.
Really? How much? When?Then why did Donald say he was OK releasing it?
You're inferring that Donald doesn't know what he's talking about.
And I'd agree with you.
I'm just fucking with you. You're the one who doesn't know what he's talking about.
It is being released, what is your problem?
And YOU know that getting it released to Congress has been done numerous times including WatergateGosh, do you know what a grand jury proceeding is? You know that much of the Mueller report is grand jury material, right? And you know that a good chunk of the Mueller report is grand jury material, right? Who do you think classified the Mueller report?
And YOU know that getting it released to Congress has been done numerous times including WatergateGosh, do you know what a grand jury proceeding is? You know that much of the Mueller report is grand jury material, right? And you know that a good chunk of the Mueller report is grand jury material, right? Who do you think classified the Mueller report?
And there's little reason to preserve secrecy of grand jury testimony AFTER an investigation is closed. If Barr tries it, the motivation will be clear. protect the fat asses asses.Again...nothing precludes a full release to Congress other than asking for the Grand Jury stuff to be released from the judge.
Releasing that to Congress is unremarkable and common.
Until you can explain how you know the law better than the AGs office, your opinion does not matter.Again...nothing precludes a full release to Congress other than asking for the Grand Jury stuff to be released from the judge.
Link?With the appropriate caveat to members of Congress that names and methods of classified investigations NOT be revealed to the general public, what is the legal standing for Barr to not release the report? (of course, with the exception that Barr IS a Trump stooge appointed SPECIFICALLY to protect his cult leader.)
So, I ask again.....since Mueller's report was authorized by republicans and fully funded by all of us tax payers, what is the LEGAL PRECEDENT for the report to not be FULLY disclosed?
None.
Start’s Report was released almost immediately.
It’s time to decouple the DOJ from the Executive branch.
The laws have changed since then.
So if it’s about sex, It can be released to the public but if it’s about national security the public should be kept in the dark?
Oh...
There I pointed out that Nixon was out of the White House a year when he did the Grand Jury testimony. which was made available to the public THIRTY SIX YEARS LATER,
Do you NOT believe that issues of National Security should be kept from all of Congress and all the public?
Barr will release the report once he finishes redacting whatever information is required by law.
So, you'll see it when you see it, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Well, you're partially correct.......SANITY will never sway the Trump CULT membership of about 34% of the population...........Do all of you cult members get a free MAGA hat???
