Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
The real collusion
Comments
-
Did the Starr report get released unredacted?Sounds like a majority favored transparency in 1998 despite nadler’s opposition. Was there strong support from republicans for full release? Must have been rather easy. Say 420-0?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Nadler in 1998: Of course you can’t release grand-jury testimony in prosecutor’s reportApostleofGrief said:This is an unresolved matter unless and until the House receives the complete unredacted report being blocked by Trumps AG
Nothing is more consistent about partisan warfare in the Beltway than inconsistency. Today’s case in point comes from 1998 (and from Jeff Dunetz), when House Judiciary Committee member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) objected to the idea that everything found by an independent prosecutor should get published for all to see. Nadler told Charlie Rose that Ken Starr’s report might contain “all kinds of material that it would be unfair to release,” including “statements which may or may not be true by various witnesses.” Besides, Nadler argued at the time, releasing grand-jury material violated federal law.
Yes, I know you were talking about the House receiving it. But still.
Either way. Sounds like you don’t care.
-
I do care about the report being released. I also care about prudent redactions being made in accordance with grand jury laws.CirrhosisDawg said:
Did the Starr report get released unredacted?Sounds like a majority favored transparency in 1998 despite nadler’s opposition. Was there strong support from republicans for full release? Must have been rather easy. Say 420-0?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Nadler in 1998: Of course you can’t release grand-jury testimony in prosecutor’s reportApostleofGrief said:This is an unresolved matter unless and until the House receives the complete unredacted report being blocked by Trumps AG
Nothing is more consistent about partisan warfare in the Beltway than inconsistency. Today’s case in point comes from 1998 (and from Jeff Dunetz), when House Judiciary Committee member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) objected to the idea that everything found by an independent prosecutor should get published for all to see. Nadler told Charlie Rose that Ken Starr’s report might contain “all kinds of material that it would be unfair to release,” including “statements which may or may not be true by various witnesses.” Besides, Nadler argued at the time, releasing grand-jury material violated federal law.
Yes, I know you were talking about the House receiving it. But still.
Either way. Sounds like you don’t care. -
Its another unintended consequence
Democrats led by our own Janet Reno were so disgusted about the Starr report that they said never again will it just be released by the SP -
I've always wondered about how fucking stupid you have to be in order to fall for one of the Rats more obvious phony political moves, now I know.RaceBannon said:Its another unintended consequence
Democrats led by our own Janet Reno were so disgusted about the Starr report that they said never again will it just be released by the SP
-
What Janet Reno “said” sure makes trumptards fall in line 20 years later.RaceBannon said:Its another unintended consequence
Democrats led by our own Janet Reno were so disgusted about the Starr report that they said never again will it just be released by the SP
Trump should just ignore all of this and sweep it under the rug for the next 20 months.
He’s busy closing the border, eventually, with all of the mexicos anway.
Trump is feeling it! -
The law was changedCirrhosisDawg said:
What Janet Reno “said” sure makes trumptards fall in line 20 years later.RaceBannon said:Its another unintended consequence
Democrats led by our own Janet Reno were so disgusted about the Starr report that they said never again will it just be released by the SP
Trump should just ignore all of this and sweep it under the rug for the next 20 months.
He’s busy closing the border, eventually, with all of the mexicos anway.
Trump is feeling it!
Like Bob said, you have to be pretty stupid and you are -
It's not just what Reno said, it's the fucking law. Thanks for playing dumbass, the Rats count on dumbfucks like you to carry their water.CirrhosisDawg said:
What Janet Reno “said” sure makes trumptards fall in line 20 years later.RaceBannon said:Its another unintended consequence
Democrats led by our own Janet Reno were so disgusted about the Starr report that they said never again will it just be released by the SP
Trump should just ignore all of this and sweep it under the rug for the next 20 months.
He’s busy closing the border, eventually, with all of the mexicos anway.
Trump is feeling it! -
Still what? Releasing something publicly vs to the House who can sign confidentiality documents is at bottom simply not the same thing!GrundleStiltzkin said:
Nadler in 1998: Of course you can’t release grand-jury testimony in prosecutor’s reportApostleofGrief said:This is an unresolved matter unless and until the House receives the complete unredacted report being blocked by Trumps AG
Nothing is more consistent about partisan warfare in the Beltway than inconsistency. Today’s case in point comes from 1998 (and from Jeff Dunetz), when House Judiciary Committee member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) objected to the idea that everything found by an independent prosecutor should get published for all to see. Nadler told Charlie Rose that Ken Starr’s report might contain “all kinds of material that it would be unfair to release,” including “statements which may or may not be true by various witnesses.” Besides, Nadler argued at the time, releasing grand-jury material violated federal law.
Yes, I know you were talking about the House receiving it. But still.
-
The law was changed?RaceBannon said:
The law was changedCirrhosisDawg said:
What Janet Reno “said” sure makes trumptards fall in line 20 years later.RaceBannon said:Its another unintended consequence
Democrats led by our own Janet Reno were so disgusted about the Starr report that they said never again will it just be released by the SP
Trump should just ignore all of this and sweep it under the rug for the next 20 months.
He’s busy closing the border, eventually, with all of the mexicos anway.
Trump is feeling it!
Like Bob said, you have to be pretty stupid and you are
J F C
This must be really embarrassing for you and bob. Special counsel provisions are covered under DOJ regulatory authority (28 CFR 600) the mechanics of which were put in place in 1999 by reno’s DOJ when the independent counsel law expired. Nadler and Congress can do whatever the fuck they want.
Retards. -
So why aren't Nadler and Congress doing whatever they want?CirrhosisDawg said:
The law was changed?RaceBannon said:
The law was changedCirrhosisDawg said:
What Janet Reno “said” sure makes trumptards fall in line 20 years later.RaceBannon said:Its another unintended consequence
Democrats led by our own Janet Reno were so disgusted about the Starr report that they said never again will it just be released by the SP
Trump should just ignore all of this and sweep it under the rug for the next 20 months.
He’s busy closing the border, eventually, with all of the mexicos anway.
Trump is feeling it!
Like Bob said, you have to be pretty stupid and you are
J F C
This must be really embarrassing for you and bob. Special counsel provisions are covered under DOJ regulatory authority (28 CFR 600) the mechanics of which were put in place in 1999 by reno’s DOJ when the independent counsel law expired. Nadler and Congress can do whatever the fuck they want.
Retards.
Pussies?
Like you?
