bdutton Posted May 9, 2019 Posted May 9, 2019 1 minute ago, McGee Return TD said: What are the rules for the members who can read the report? I've seen it reported that only 12 or so members can see the report and they cannot discuss it with anyone, not even other members of Congress, outside of the room it's in. Even so... why haven't they at least taken the trouble to see it. They claim to want to be more informed yet they refuse this? They know they cannot see the fully unredacted report due to legal reasons. This is nothing more than a circus show. 2
Deranged Rhino Posted May 9, 2019 Posted May 9, 2019 Just now, McGee Return TD said: What are the rules for the members who can read the report? I've seen it reported that only 12 or so members can see the report and they cannot discuss it with anyone, not even Congress, outside of the room it's in. Everyone in Congress can see the report, just as every citizen can. The DOJ negotiated to allow leadership to not only read the unredacted (bar 2% of GJ material) report, but to take any notes they wish to take down with them. It's SOP for material of this nature (ongoing investigations) -- even that, the DOJ lowered the bar to allow them to take notes. Still declined. Because they don't want to read it. It's not about the report. It's about the coup. Just now, Tiberius said: It has to be made public to refute Trump's and the GOP lies that are being told about it. Right now its just he said, she said, and Barr is refusing to go on the record with the House because he knows he will have to lie about it. It's just that simple It's NOT just he said she said. The REPORT IS PUBLIC AND HAS BEEN FOR THREE WEEKS. Your talking points are weak.
Tiberius Posted May 9, 2019 Posted May 9, 2019 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: Who cares if they haven't read it. That's not important. What's important is: they've had the ability to read the report, in full, outside of grand jury information, and they're throwing a hissy fit over Barr misrepresenting the report and withholding it from them. They held Barr in contempt for one of two things: withholding something he's not withholding, or withholding details that he's required by law to withhold. And judges routinely allow GJ testimony to be released, so take it to a judge. Oh thats right, the president has executive privlidge over the report of his own criminality, lol! Constitution, smonstitution! 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: It's NOT just he said she said. The REPORT IS PUBLIC AND HAS BEEN FOR THREE WEEKS. Your talking points are weak. LOL!!! The redacted by liar Barr has been. Nice try...not Trump is making you guys look so stupid, he has enlisted you in his stupidity. Love it!!
Deranged Rhino Posted May 9, 2019 Posted May 9, 2019 6 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Trump is making you guys look so stupid, he has enlisted you in his stupidity. Love it!! The only one who looks stupid is the guy still pushing Russian collusion/conspiracy a year and a half after it was disproven -- by Mueller's own filings and now his report.
Deranged Rhino Posted May 9, 2019 Posted May 9, 2019 De Nang Dick -- who's up to his neck in the coup and is dirty beyond belief -- should be looking in the mirror as he says this.
Koko78 Posted May 9, 2019 Posted May 9, 2019 2 hours ago, row_33 said: Dems, your lottery ticket didn’t win the jackpot. No sense looking at the ticket a million more times, it didn’t win. The solution is simple: Barr must keep drawing numbers out of fear of 'contempt' charges until they hit the jackpot! 1
Koko78 Posted May 9, 2019 Posted May 9, 2019 57 minutes ago, Tiberius said: And judges routinely allow GJ testimony to be released, so take it to a judge. Please cite sources for this, and point out under what Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure judges are authorized to order release of grand jury testimony to parties who are not specifically listed under rule 6. 1 1
row_33 Posted May 9, 2019 Posted May 9, 2019 11 minutes ago, Koko78 said: Please cite sources for this, and point out under what Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure judges are authorized to order release of grand jury testimony to parties who are not specifically listed under rule 6. Tibs can't comprehend 12 things in that sentence.
Koko78 Posted May 9, 2019 Posted May 9, 2019 4 minutes ago, row_33 said: Tibs can't comprehend 12 things in that sentence. I know.
Tiberius Posted May 9, 2019 Posted May 9, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Koko78 said: Please cite sources for this, and point out under what Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure judges are authorized to order release of grand jury testimony to parties who are not specifically listed under rule 6. They did it in Watergate, for instance. And that sets a precedent because its the president. And in a recent historical case involving a lynching, but I'll give you the fact that courts have been split on the decisions over this. 1 hour ago, Koko78 said: I know. Oh now, you are agree with a POS like Row? Row is like a trash wrapper on the floor of PPP. Nothing more @row_33 Edited May 9, 2019 by Tiberius
bdutton Posted May 9, 2019 Posted May 9, 2019 5 minutes ago, Tiberius said: They did it in Watergate, for instance. And that sets a precedent because its the president. And in a recent historical case involving a lynching, but I'll give you the fact that courts have been split on the decisions over this. You obviously don't realize that laws were written and rules made in RESPONSE to Watergate... or you are being intentionally obtuse when its been pointed out multiple times in this and other threads.
Tiberius Posted May 9, 2019 Posted May 9, 2019 2 minutes ago, bdutton said: You obviously don't realize that laws were written and rules made in RESPONSE to Watergate... or you are being intentionally obtuse when its been pointed out multiple times in this and other threads. For Grand Jury testimony? Ya right.
DC Tom Posted May 9, 2019 Posted May 9, 2019 5 minutes ago, bdutton said: You obviously don't realize that laws were written and rules made in RESPONSE to Watergate... or you are being intentionally obtuse when its been pointed out multiple times in this and other threads. Intentionally obtuse.
row_33 Posted May 9, 2019 Posted May 9, 2019 2 hours ago, Koko78 said: I know. does he just read our comments and then "things go gray" and he comes back and forgets and plods on with his intelligence levels? 18 minutes ago, bdutton said: You obviously don't realize that laws were written and rules made in RESPONSE to Watergate... or you are being intentionally obtuse when its been pointed out multiple times in this and other threads. he has not shown any reading or comprehension of any of 1,000s of responses except to tell us to do something perverted
Tiberius Posted May 9, 2019 Posted May 9, 2019 10 minutes ago, row_33 said: does he just read our comments and then "things go gray" and he comes back and forgets and plods on with his intelligence levels? he has not shown any reading or comprehension of any of 1,000s of responses except to tell us to do something perverted How in the world would you know? You wouldn't understand anyway, trash
row_33 Posted May 9, 2019 Posted May 9, 2019 sorry, decent people find these acts perverted, they are never more than .3 seconds away from Tibs's mind and then his typing fingertips.
SoCal Deek Posted May 9, 2019 Posted May 9, 2019 Tibs...is there even the slightest possibility that the Attorney General knows the Law better than you do? I’m guessing he does!
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted May 9, 2019 Posted May 9, 2019 2 hours ago, Koko78 said: Please cite sources for this, and point out under what Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure judges are authorized to order release of grand jury testimony to parties who are not specifically listed under rule 6. I don't think you are even remotely considering how all of this makes people feel. People are hurting.
Recommended Posts