Mueller Investigation pt5

Status
Not open for further replies.
At least in pt5, here’s the first hint of Bill Clinton’s lying under oath:

Belz... said:
And yet Clinton's process crime about a not-illegal act was vilified by some of the same posters here for years.
Click to expand...

It was then dragged into a discussion about said blowjob. I honestly thought the Belz’s was referring to Hillary. I don’t think it’s fair to paint me as engaging in whattaboutism or false equivalency. I was just trying to set the record straight on what Bill Clinton’s criminal charge was about. Hint: Not about a blowjob.
 
Last edited:
Fast Eddie B said:
I’m not willing to do the work, but I’d be curious as to who brought “Clinton’s blowjob” into this thread in the first place.
Click to expand...
It grew out of a discussion of the special prosecutor rules then evolved to this:

Bogative said:
Fast Eddie B said:
Unless there is a VERY good reason, we the people are entitled to know what our government is doing.
Click to expand...

With the exception of using taxpayer money to cover up the sexual peccadilloes of Congress members, in that case, we can go **** ourselves.
Click to expand...
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Nothing.

Let’s move on.

But let’s also try not to misstate what Clinton’s crime was. Repeatedly.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

Yes yes, mustn't mention the name of Clinton without using the pedantic version of whataboutism. Do not shorten the issue to what it was really about, GOP and Ken Starr persecution.
 
Bogative said:
Even the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee has said Barr is "required" to provide the report to him, but he hasn't shown any rules, regulations or laws to back up his claim.
Click to expand...

Bogative said:
Did she point out in the regulations she drafted exactly where the AG is required to release the report to Congress? Until she does, her opinion is a nonstarter.
Click to expand...

Bogative said:
Can you show the law that will allow Congress the right to get it? Nobody else has.
Click to expand...

The basis for that claim that Congress may see the full Mueller report is the legally well-established oversight function of Congress, as well as its impeachment powers. See Wikipedia's page on "Congressional Oversight" for the history, political theory, Supreme Court rulings, etc.
 
Bogative said:
The AG is not required to release the report to anyone according to DOJ regulations (see my post above). Special Counsel reports were required by law to be made public until 1999 when Congress allowed the "Ethics in Government Act of 1978" to expire after the Starr Report came out. The Reno DOJ wrote the current regulations giving the AG discretion on whether or not to release special counsel reports.

Attorney General Janet Reno sent Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder to Congress so he could argue on behalf of the DOJ for Congress to allow the Special Counsel Act to expire, in part, because the act required special counsel reports to be released to the public. Hilarious now he's arguing that special counsel reports should be made public.

Link
Click to expand...
Again you cite one set of laws.

There is a different set of laws that gives the Congress broad subpoena powers.

What makes you think some DoJ 'rules' supersede the Constitutional power of Congress to put a check on the POTUS?
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Again you cite one set of laws.

There is a different set of laws that gives the Congress broad subpoena powers.

What makes you think some DoJ 'rules' supersede the Constitutional power of Congress to put a check on the POTUS?
Click to expand...

I’m not sure exactly how “co-equal” expands on “equal”, but it’s not like the legislative branch is subservient to the executive branch.

Though Lordy, it often seems like it’s portrayed that way.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
I’m not sure exactly how “co-equal” expands on “equal”, but it’s not like the legislative branch is subservient to the executive branch.

Though Lordy, it often seems like it’s portrayed that way.
Click to expand...
:confused:

What do you think I posted that was wrong? How else is the Legislative Branch supposed to Check and Balance the Executive Branch?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
:confused:

What do you think I posted that was wrong? How else is the Legislative Branch supposed to Check and Balance the Executive Branch?
Click to expand...

I did not mean to imply anything you said was wrong.

I actually meant to support and expand upon what you were saying, not contradict it.

Unless you thought you had stumbled into the Argument Clinic!
 
Last edited:
Trump Tweets

So, it has now been determined, by 18 people that truly hate President Trump, that there was No Collusion with Russia. In fact, it was an illegal investigation that should never have been allowed to start. I fought back hard against this Phony & Treasonous Hoax!
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweets

So, it has now been determined, by 18 people that truly hate President Trump some grovelling smart-guy I hand-picked to say this, that there was No Collusion with Russia. In fact, it was an illegal investigation that should never have been allowed to start. I fought back hard raged like a spoiled brat against this Phony & Treasonous Hoax!
Click to expand...
Ftfy, Donny.
 
I know it's something of a fool's errand, but I really don't understand Trump's logic here.

"it was an illegal investigation that should never have been allowed to start."

Wasn't it started by Rod Rosenstein, using the accepted process for appointing a Speical Counsel? What is illegal about it? I understand that he doesn't like it, and thinks it was a witch hunt, hugely influenced by Democrats (depsite being authorised and overseen almost entirely by Republicans) etc. etc. - but in what way was it illegal?
 
Worm said:
I know it's something of a fool's errand, but I really don't understand Trump's logic here.

"it was an illegal investigation that should never have been allowed to start."

Wasn't it started by Rod Rosenstein, using the accepted process for appointing a Speical Counsel? What is illegal about it? I understand that he doesn't like it, and thinks it was a witch hunt, hugely influenced by Democrats (depsite being authorised and overseen almost entirely by Republicans) etc. etc. - but in what way was it illegal?
Click to expand...

The only logic Trump uses is "whatever I can get my base to swallow"- which means "illegal" doesn't have to be accurate, it's just a simplistic meme that those folks can follow.
 
Worm said:
I know it's something of a fool's errand, but I really don't understand Trump's logic here.

"it was an illegal investigation that should never have been allowed to start."

Wasn't it started by Rod Rosenstein, using the accepted process for appointing a Speical Counsel? What is illegal about it? I understand that he doesn't like it, and thinks it was a witch hunt, hugely influenced by Democrats (depsite being authorised and overseen almost entirely by Republicans) etc. etc. - but in what way was it illegal?
Click to expand...

The logic is "the report is damaging to me, so if I discredit it before it's released then that will make it easier for people to discount its veracity".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom