Foxx

https://twitter.com/JusticeOIG/status/1204521306659737600

here you go. ***** them asshat Dems, though i really would like to Schiffty squirm in the chair. https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1204477525323370499

no, it would not. the president can fire anyone in the executive.

never!

though i urge you to spend the entire 24:18 of this interview listening, to the above quoted portion: 6:23 of this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRKFo0JmuBc&feature=emb_logo 11:26 is very important as well. "...there was alot going on around this that is not the subject matter of Horowitz's report, but i think has a direct bearing perhaps upon what was going on in the FBI..."

i truly am perplexed by his response, as it can only be very loosely deemed to have been a direct response to my post. maybe he had a drink or two.....

there's no place like home..... there's no place like home.....

what the *****???? i'm not sure you followed along with my post very well. i stated that of the 17 'mistakes' that were egregious enough to have been included in the report, why is it considered that all 17 of them were mistakes that favored the prosecution and not the defense? the law of averages should stipulate that that is next to impossible. the mistakes should be pointing in all different directions, not just towards the favorability of the prosecution. which then would logically lead to the conclusion that there was a bias. the only, and i repeat the only caveat to this, would be that there were other 'mistakes' that didn't warrant inclusion in the report that may have pointed in the other direction. however if that is the case, then it stands to reason that they did not rise to the same level as the included, 'mistakes'. this shouldn't be that hard. i am not arguing one way or the other here, just pointing towards logical deductions.

we should probably have a separate thread for Horowitz's hearing tomorrow. if someone starts one, can we please stipulate that the only way you can post to it is to include a tweet, or three with absolutely no commentary allowed, thanks i kid... i kid.... ************************************************************* thank you!

no worries. i urge everyone to listen to Barr's interview. he gives an overview Horowitz couldn't. tomorrows Senate committee on the Judiciary with Horowitz should be good.

6 second difference? maybe i had some buffering going on there. apologies. ETA: yes, video actually begins broadcasting at 24:34 but they don't begin to sit down until 24:40.

this is not the first time HSBC was fined/found guilty of impropriety. it seems every other year they are in trouble for violating some US law or another. they have been fined billions of dollars. additionally, i do hope your not advocating for the breaking of or minimizing of US law.

the interview begins at 24:40 https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1204470791775117312

it is completely within the President's purview to fire anyone within the executive branch, period.

lol, sorry but no. there differences are quite stark.

not sure you can prove obstruction of an underlying crime that you didn't commit.

so... what you are essentially saying here is that you are incapable of sifting the wheat from the chaff on your own? you would prefer to shoot the messenger rather than look through it all to see what is of value. i hope you understand that your argument is coming across as very weak. i'm sure you possess critical thinking skills, utilize them please. why not? again, critical thinking is incumbent.... upon you. it is not someone else's responsibility to do the work for you.

this didn't take long. just signed. but you know... Nanacy and the Dem's had to make sweeping changes to it. the swiftness of the signing only indicates that Nancy and the Dems have been holding up progress. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc_UBF7mKog

some might say it has already started... https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1204467623452434438 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FK9xzvi9yXk&feature=emb_logo

un*****ing real.

really? commenting that 17 'mistakes' that were warranted for inclusion in the report, all fell one way seems to indicate a bias is making a lot of assumptions? wow, you are off your rocker, transplant. i tried being civil with you and even being nice to you because you have expressed a tenderness that you hurt when being confronted with brutal truthfulness and this is how you choose to interact. i may have to re-evaluate my decision on how to engage with you. as is my right since you are going to lose our bet.

must you always be an asshat? what do you have against the proliferation of information? because most of it is rational and makes sense that goes against your would have narrative? information only enhances the formation of opinions. it would appear that you would prefer uninformed opinions be developed, how sad is that. just piss off would you, you really add nothing here. if you could be genuine, you would contribute a much needed counter point, yet you can't do it so ... just piss off.

ummm... multiple, different trains of thought are what comprise a thread. bringing in information only helps that discourse to be not only informed but lively. i am going to assume you can follow more than one train of thought at a time due to your being, 'a long time lurker'.

be better than that. no comment on the gist of my post?

regarding #3... i believe they D's and R's are just opposite wings of the same bird and as such, this is my biggest fear. they will roll out something or perhaps do a back ally run and vote to remove him. universe help us if they do that because i truly think we will see the beginnings of a shooting war in the streets.