Why it’s time for Trump to play his ace in the hole

[McRocket]

Sure play the ace in the hole. Why should a president respect the integrity of an ongoing investigation anyways? I'm sure that using executive privilege in order to taint an investigation some more wouldn't matter.

Libs hate law and order.

Really? So you have personal knowledge and proof that tens of millions of American liberals - almost none of whom you have ever met - all 'hate law and order'.
You must...because you said it in a matter-of-fact manner.

So where is this link to this unbiased, factual proof you have that 'Libs hate law and order'?

Simple. You nominated Hillary Clinton for President. Mike drop.

LOL - besides the fact I am not a liberal; you made a matter-of-fact statement that all liberals 'hate law and order'.
Who one nominates does not prove what one believes something. They could have nominated her for other reasons.
Also, not all liberals nominated - or even voted for - Clinton.

I will ask again, were is your link to unbiased, factual proof that all 'libs hate law and order'?

If I added most before your truncated post, would it make you feel better?

Hey pal...you made the initial, matter-of-fact claim. I am just asking you to back it up.

For the third time:

I will ask again, were is your link to unbiased, factual proof that all 'libs hate law and order'?

 

[bullwinkle]

He could, in an instant, strike a blow for accountability and transparency by ordering the Justice Department to give Congress everything it wants, subject to very limited restrictions.

Ahem...give 'Congress' everything it wants, or just Nunes and Jordan? What if 'Congress' asks for Trump's tax returns or an accounting of billings to the government for Trump family facilities used as national business sites, such as Mar-A-Lago or Bedminster for entertaining foreign dignitaries? That transparency?

Darkman, you don't want transparency any more than Trump does. Be careful what you ask for. It is the last thing you want.

None of those items are applicable to the case. Have a nice day, libtard!

Why not?

No collusion, which is not even illegal in any of those you mentioned. Pushing up a rope would be just as effective, but you knew that.

I don't think 'collusion' is Trump's issue. "Collusion' is his diversion, and you are his faithful echo.. for starters. If Trump kept his mouth shut this would be known for what it is, namely an investigation into Russian interference in American elections. And you know nothing of the results of the investigation. So why is Trump, with your eager aid, pre-emptively trying to discredit the investigation? What are you afraid will be discovered?

Have a nice day, Publican!

 

[Crixus]

Why it’s time for Trump to play his ace in the hole

By Michael Goodwin

August 7, 2018 | 10:52pm | Updated

Modal Trigger

Jeff Sessions (from left), Robert Mueller and Rod Rosenstein


{ Snip }


QUOTE:

Fortunately, there is one card left to play. It is Trump’s ace in the hole, and now is the time to put it on the table.

As I and others have noted, a president has almost unlimited powers to declassify any document within the executive branch. It is a mystery why Trump has hesitated to use that power, especially because he rails so frequently about the unfairness of both probes.

He could, in an instant, strike a blow for accountability and transparency by ordering the Justice Department to give Congress everything it wants, subject to very limited restrictions.

Embarrassment does not qualify as a reason for withholding information.

Almost certainly, the bias against Trump and in favor of Clinton would be glaring if the document troves were exposed to the disinfectant of sunshine. That would make the move a political bonus for Trump.

Even more important, it would set a dramatic precedent for a more open government, something Trump promised to deliver. Secrecy is an important part of the deep state’s permanent power and, when invoked to extremes by law enforcement, veers toward a police state. Trump should make sure he is its last victim.

Throw open the doors, Mr. President, and turn history’s page toward openness. Today would be a great day to start.


Read more .......

I would like that, but the DOJ wouldn’t do it. They would run to court and jam it up. Short of sending in US Marshels to collect the info I don’t feel they would comply.

 

[Crixus]

It makes for a better October surprise.

You don’t think there may be stuff that can hurt trump? I have been wondering why he hasn’t done this already.

 

[JBond]

Libs hate law and order.

Really? So you have personal knowledge and proof that tens of millions of American liberals - almost none of whom you have ever met - all 'hate law and order'.
You must...because you said it in a matter-of-fact manner.

So where is this link to this unbiased, factual proof you have that 'Libs hate law and order'?

Simple. You nominated Hillary Clinton for President. Mike drop.

LOL - besides the fact I am not a liberal; you made a matter-of-fact statement that all liberals 'hate law and order'.
Who one nominates does not prove what one believes something. They could have nominated her for other reasons.
Also, not all liberals nominated - or even voted for - Clinton.

I will ask again, were is your link to unbiased, factual proof that all 'libs hate law and order'?

If I added most before your truncated post, would it make you feel better?

Hey pal...you made the initial, matter-of-fact claim. I am just asking you to back it up.

For the third time:

I will ask again, were is your link to unbiased, factual proof that all 'libs hate law and order'?

Hillary fucking Clinton. Dumb ass.

 

[bullwinkle]

Hillary fucking Clinton. Dumb ass.

THAT'S your answer to a third request for factual proof that "libs hate law and order"? Actually, you can't be blamed much. That's exactly the kind of response people get from Trump, and wildly cheer at his rallys. God help us!

 

[McRocket]

Really? So you have personal knowledge and proof that tens of millions of American liberals - almost none of whom you have ever met - all 'hate law and order'.
You must...because you said it in a matter-of-fact manner.

So where is this link to this unbiased, factual proof you have that 'Libs hate law and order'?

Simple. You nominated Hillary Clinton for President. Mike drop.

LOL - besides the fact I am not a liberal; you made a matter-of-fact statement that all liberals 'hate law and order'.
Who one nominates does not prove what one believes something. They could have nominated her for other reasons.
Also, not all liberals nominated - or even voted for - Clinton.

I will ask again, were is your link to unbiased, factual proof that all 'libs hate law and order'?

If I added most before your truncated post, would it make you feel better?

Hey pal...you made the initial, matter-of-fact claim. I am just asking you to back it up.

For the third time:

I will ask again, were is your link to unbiased, factual proof that all 'libs hate law and order'?

Hillary fucking Clinton. Dumb ass.

LOL. Wow...your reading comprehension is not too great apparently.

Well, since you appear to lack intermidiate reading skills....let's start from the bottom.

Did every Liberal vote for Clinton...yes or no?


BTW - a little advice? When you know you cannot answer the question put to you...repeating the erroneous answer you previously gave and throwing an expletive on the end to try and 'make someone go away' is usually a sure sign of intellectual vacancy...at least on the subject in question.
Just sayin'....

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

He could, in an instant, strike a blow for accountability and transparency by ordering the Justice Department to give Congress everything it wants, subject to very limited restrictions.

Ahem...give 'Congress' everything it wants, or just Nunes and Jordan? What if 'Congress' asks for Trump's tax returns or an accounting of billings to the government for Trump family facilities used as national business sites, such as Mar-A-Lago or Bedminster for entertaining foreign dignitaries? That transparency?

Darkman, you don't want transparency any more than Trump does. Be careful what you ask for. It is the last thing you want.

None of those items are applicable to the case. Have a nice day, libtard!

Why not?

No collusion, which is not even illegal in any of those you mentioned. Pushing up a rope would be just as effective, but you knew that.

I don't think 'collusion' is Trump's issue. "Collusion' is his diversion, and you are his faithful echo.. for starters. If Trump kept his mouth shut this would be known for what it is, namely an investigation into Russian interference in American elections. And you know nothing of the results of the investigation. So why is Trump, with your eager aid, pre-emptively trying to discredit the investigation? What are you afraid will be discovered?

Have a nice day, Publican!

Oh, for Christ's sake! Are you seriously that fucking stupid? You need to check the media reports. Google "Russian collusion" and see where it originated.

 

[Dana7360]

He could, in an instant, strike a blow for accountability and transparency by ordering the Justice Department to give Congress everything it wants, subject to very limited restrictions.

Ahem...give 'Congress' everything it wants, or just Nunes and Jordan? What if 'Congress' asks for Trump's tax returns or an accounting of billings to the government for Trump family facilities used as national business sites, such as Mar-A-Lago or Bedminster for entertaining foreign dignitaries? That transparency?

Darkman, you don't want transparency any more than Trump does. Be careful what you ask for. It is the last thing you want.

I would be very sure that if our congress turned to democratic control that the person you're replying to would never want any of trump's documents turned over to congress. I'm sure that person would be screaming that congress has no business seeing those documents and it was unconstitutional to even ask for them.