myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Time to fire AG Garland,
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14834
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Thu Sep 01, 2022 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

as I said fire garland, he fought to stop the barr BS to see the light of day on the Mueller BS. Barr lied and would not allow us to see that Trump did obstruct justice by intimidating witnesses and more.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/william-barrs-unredacted-doj-memo-trump-deserves-outrageo-rcna45068


William Barr's unredacted memo about Trump deserves more outrage

The contents of the memo and the hand that Merrick Garland's Justice Department had in keeping it from being released are disturbing.


Quote:
A 2019 unredacted Justice Department memo, relied upon by then-Attorney General William Barr to justify his decision not to charge former President Donald Trump with committing obstruction of justice following Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, was released Wednesday.

The release was made possible thanks to a 2019 lawsuit filed by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) under the Freedom of Information Act.

This unredacted memo may go unnoticed by many Americans because both Trump’s and President Joe Biden’s Justice Department delayed its release for years until now — when the Mueller probe seems like ancient history.

This unredacted memo may go unnoticed by many Americans because both Trump’s and President Joe Biden’s Justice Department delayed its release for years until now — when the Mueller probe seems like ancient history. But the contents of the memo should outrage every American, and the misguided efforts of Biden’s Justice Department to oppose its release gives us all a reason to worry about Attorney General Merrick Garland’s perspective.

To people familiar with the department’s byzantine organizational hierarchy, the positions of the memo’s authors — the assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel and the principal associate deputy attorney general — are significant. For those not familiar with these two positions: if this were, say, high school, those in the legal counsel’s office are the “nerds,” and those in the deputy attorney general office are the “jocks.”

The head of the Office of Legal Counsel does not prosecute cases because OLC is the egg-head think tank of the Justice Department, tasked with advising not only the attorney general but also the Office of the President and all executive branch agencies. In essence, it’s a group of lawyers’ lawyers — the legal department of the nation’s law firm.


Importantly, OLC does not make charging decisions in cases. The principal associate deputy attorney general is the top adviser to the deputy attorney general, who is the number two at the Justice Department. Known as “the PADAG” in the department parlance, this job is an extremely powerful position and is actively involved in high-level prosecution decisions. The fact that the memo was co-authored by these two officials signals that Barr — a two-time attorney general well-versed in the department’s bureaucracy — sought maximum credibility.

But the resulting work product is an embarrassment.



First, the legal analysis is laughably bad. In a nutshell, the memo takes the position that despite the evidence uncovered by the Mueller probe of Trump’s efforts to obstruct justice and tamper with witnesses, a prosecution would be unwarranted because Mueller concluded that there was no evidence of collusion in Volume I. The memo argues that without a crime or criminal conspiracy (collusion) “toward which any obstruction or attempted obstruction was directed,” it would be inappropriate to charge obstruction of justice. It doesn’t take a legal scholar to understand that the whole point of interfering with a criminal investigation is to avoid being charged, so the memo potentially rewards those who successfully obstruct justice.


Bill Barr lied about considering charging Trump with obstruction of Mueller, court says
AUG. 22, 202205:17
Second, from an integrity standpoint, the memo reads, as New York Times reporter Charlie Savage tweeted, “like a defense lawyer’s brief.” It’s a sentiment not unlike the one shared by Amy Berman Jackson, the federal judge who oversaw the CREW lawsuit seeking access to the memo. Last year, as the Justice Department continued to fight the memo’s full release through an appeal, Jackson opined that her review of the evidence in the case showed that the Justice Department’s real priority at the time the memo was written was not legal analysis but political cover for Barr when he reported to Congress that the department had determined that Trump should not be charged with obstruction of justice.

Biden’s Justice Department, led by Garland, could have stopped fighting and not continued with an appeal of the trial court’s decision. But instead, the current Justice Department stayed the course initially charted by Barr. Now, I understand why the department would not want to agree to release OLC memos. It doesn’t want to create a slippery slope of being expected to release them every time the public wants to see what’s going on at the Justice Department, but the Barr memo seems like a poor case to stand on principle.


Perhaps the Biden Justice Department’s efforts to oppose the release of this evidence of Barr’s corrupting politicization of the department arises from Garland being, as one commentator described, “a kind of radical institutionalist, a stickler for regular order, a true believer in the norms and processes put in place after Watergate that weathered nearly every storm until Trump.”

But institutions, like buildings, require solid foundations. And the foundation of the Justice Department was damaged by Trump and Barr, much the way a storm may damage a building’s foundations. Repairing that kind of damage cannot be accomplished by just covering it up. Failing to address severe damage to buildings and institutions reduces structures to ruins.

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14834
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Tue Sep 27, 2022 7:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

garland needs to be fired, but not for what he stated but because he is so Johnny lately and did not appoint independent counsels right after taking office

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/no-white-house-participation-whatsoever-merrick-garland-douses-team-trump-s-interference-claims/ar-AA12jBxN?cvid=ee5bbb3776274858f2721efd7d24b6e8&ocid=winp2sv1plustaskbarhover


'No White House participation whatsoever': Merrick Garland douses Team Trump's interference claims


Quote:
United States Attorney General Merrick Garland on Tuesday pushed back against baseless claims made by former President Donald Trump and his attorneys that President Joe Biden has been secretly orchestrating the litany of probes into Trump.

During an interview with C-SPAN, a reporter noted that "a number of President Trump's allies have suggested without any evidence that you are conducting these investigations at the behest of the Biden White House. I just want to give you an opportunity to address that."

Garland stated that "I think that the president made clear when he appointed me that he would not interfere with in any way any criminal investigations and he has stood by that. And there has been no White House participation whatsoever."
.
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935

PostPosted: Wed Sep 28, 2022 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Now Garland is trying to put a clean-as-a-whistle father of 7 (Houck) into prison for 11 years because he pushed an activist out of his 12-yo kid's face. Houck volunteered to turn himself in (after local officials had declared his push justifiable), but NOOOOOO ... 20-30 FBI storm troopers in full SWAT regalia stormed his home, pointed rifles at his head in front of his little kids, and hauled him away. (I can't stand bible-thumpers or other activists in my face, but putting the former in prison for 11 years when mass looters and dangerous wild animals are given free reign by YOUR leaders is incomprehensible.)

Worse yet, this is going on across the nation by the dozens of instances, and your media are hiding it from you with your eager cooperation and complicity. Have you even seen the videos of animals throwing old ladies down concrete stairways, stomping them near to death, etc. as onlookers just point and shoot their cell phones rather than helping the victim by bludgeoning the attackers into hamburger with anything movable or shooting them 16 times?

The leader of YOUR party and YOU disgusting people are allowing, often pushing for, sometimes apparently even instigating this totalitarian behavior by Garland's (actually Soros') minions and by animals allowed to roam free, and very few of you demonstrate any awareness of what the world is like beyond TikTok sound bites or tweets. Is it any wonder that so few rational, honest, intelligent, informed people are willing to regard you and your leaders as adult OR human? How are YOU going to feel, and what are YOU going to do about it when animals YOUR politicians freed from prison stomp YOUR grandmother to fugging bits and pieces with no lasting consequences?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588

PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2022 12:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

isobars is howling at the moon again while swinging blindly at shadows. No doubt, he's drunk with rage. His face must be a fuming beet red.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14834
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had suggested to friends a special prosecutor be appointed on each potential crime by trump, at least 6 of them. Been saying it since the get go to friends.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/doj-considers-special-counsel-for-trump-if-he-runs-in-2024-report/ar-AA13IpYX?ocid=winp2sv1plustaskbarhover&cvid=9f73fc68e4cc4548b5caf3f1f3a6db04

DOJ considers special counsel for Trump if he runs in 2024: Report


Quote:
Justice Department officials are discussing whether there is a need to appoint a special counsel to oversee two investigations into former President Donald Trump if he decides to run for president again in 2024, according to a new report.

Discussions about appointing a special counsel have touched on whether doing so would shield the Justice Department from claims that President Joe Biden's administration is seeking to undermine his top political rival, sources told CNN.

Trump has heavily teased that he is interested in a third campaign but has not formally declared.


He is under investigation for his handling of documents and is under scrutiny in an investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.

Related video: Exclusive: DOJ mulling potential special counsel if Trump runs in 2024

said this just today.
Trump has broadly denied any wrongdoing, claiming he is the target of political witch hunts.

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14834
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Sun May 21, 2023 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

this is the perfect example, a person involved with Rudy for years decides to out him and has recording and evidence from cell phone records and rudys emails.. What more do you need to open an investigation by a new special prosecutor on trump and Rudy selling pardons and invalidating those pardons. Fire this attorney general for not immediately announcing that this was going to begin an investigation to look into it and if the apparent evidence was sufficient he would appoint an independent counsel or special prosecutor.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trumpworld-has-a-vested-interest-in-rudy-guiliani-settling-out-of-court-with-new-accuser-legal-expert/ar-AA1btCC4?cvid=6cc9f05f03de4b6ee350d0bfcb345935&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=7

Trumpworld has a 'vested interest' in Rudy Guiliani settling out of court with new accuser: legal expert


Quote:
According to a former prosecutor, allegations that former Donald Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani was selling presidential pardons for millions likely has some members of Trumpworld worried about what he might say under oath if the civil suit filed by a former associate goes to trial.

Earlier in the week, the former New York City mayor was slammed with a $10 million lawsuit, with former aide Noelle Dunphy alleging wage theft, sexual harassment, money laundering and the selling of pardons.

Discussing the alleged pardon selling on MSNBC on Sunday morning with fill-in host Charles Blow, former prosecutor David Henderson stated that the last thing Donald Trump and anyone who may have received a pardon -- legitimate or not -- wants is Giuliani being put on the stand and asked about the allegations.

With that in mind, he suggested the former Trump lawyer will likely be under wilting pressure to settle as soon as possible.


"We have to talk about this in two separate contexts," Henderson told the host. "The specific context in terms of what it means legally, but then we also have to talk about it in the context of what this means in the overall makeup of this case. In that context, Giuliani has a couple of problems here. The first one is: juries don't like lawyers -- plain and simple. They barely like us when we're standing up in front of them arguing, they definitely don't like us when we are on trial."


"The only thing they like less than lawyers are liars," he added, "and by the time this case gets to trial, there's going to be any number of things that can be used to impeach Giuliani based on his credibility, his ability to testify truthfully."

"Now, the law is a game of nerves," he elaborated. "Add to that, when we start to talk about him selling pardons, we're not just talking about how that comes up in the context of the courtroom that this case it may be tried in. It also means that lots of people have a vested interest in preventing him from talking and preventing this case from moving forward which means there's going to be pressure on him to resolve it sooner rather than later."

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14834
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2023 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ha, I got it right after 5 months....

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/it-s-official-the-doj-stalled-the-investigation-into-donald-trump/ar-AA1cQzSD?ocid=winp2sv1plustaskbarhover&cvid=efaaa55a91084ee9bb029c74658ce3d9&ei=21

It’s Official: The DOJ Stalled the Investigation Into Donald Trump


Quote:
On Monday morning, The Washington Post published a devastating story about attempts by leadership at the Department of Justice—including, most notably, Attorney General Merrick Garland, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, and FBI Director Chris Wray—to avoid prosecuting Donald Trump. The story exposes how the DOJ quashed efforts to aggressively pursue Trump and other politically connected Republicans for their roles in attacking the Capitol on January 6, 2021, and instead adopted a more “cautious” appro ach aimed at avoiding the appearance of partisanship. Garland, it would seem, cared more about appearing fair (to Republicans) than seeking justice against the Republicans who tried to overthrow the government. 1

The story is, of course, not surprising to me. I’ve been saying that Garland was the wrong guy for the job pretty much since January 7. I have noted that his desperate attempts to appear “nonpartisan” by refusing to go after a Republican who committed crimes was the real measure of his craven partisanship. But Garland has his defenders. Many of them are institutionalists who are going to defend pretty much anybody who wears a suit, is vested with authority, and doesn’t upset traditional norms. Many others are Joe Biden defenders who believe any criticism of Garland is an attack on Biden. For my part, I think that Biden was wrong to appoint Garland as Attorney General, and I think President Barack Obama was wrong to nominate Garland for the Supreme Court, and yet I’d happily vote for either president again. Even good executives can make bad personnel decisions. My problem is with Merrick Garland and his signature move of convincing Democratic presidents that his ability to be inoffensive to Republicans is a virtue instead of a moral failure. 2


You’d think that the Post story would quiet the Garland defenders for at least a week, but no no no, his fans are out with the pom-poms to defend their guy. They’ve latched onto a defense I’m sure Garland himself will make once he writes a book about all the things he didn’t do: Garland wasn’t avoiding prosecuting the former president, he was just methodically building a case against Trump from the bottom up. The Post itself offered a preview of this defense when it described Garland, Monaco, and Wray as adopting a “ladder” approach by which they started with the January 6 rioters and worked their way up to Trump. 3

There are two problems with this narrative: Garland wasn’t really using a ladder approach to work his way up to Trump, and even if he was, a ladder approach was unjust and inappropriate for this case.4

My rejection of the ladder approach to criminal investigation will surprise some people, because it’s the method often championed by prosecutors and law enforcement in organized crime cases, and it’s the one most frequently popularized in our entertainment and popular culture. Everybody can kind of visualize a cork board with a bunch of low-level crooks pinned to the periphery with strings and notes leading to John Gotti’s face at the center. One can imagine prosecutors diligently charging and flipping the boss’s sloppy or violent associates as they move ever closer to nailing their true target.5

At least, that’s how it works in the movies. In real life, this “approach” is really an excuse for prosecutors to use the vast resources of the federal government to bully minor lawbreakers, who can’t begin to defend themselves, until they break under the sheer weight of charges arrayed against them and cop a plea. It involves the government threatening drug users and thieves with over-punishment unless they are lucky enough to know something about somebody the government is actually interested in. It involves prosecutors over-charging the defendant in front of them, and justifying it with their zeal to capture somebody else. And sometimes, it involves the government letting truly bad people get away with horrible things in the hope that the dangerous criminal they let off easy today can help them catch a more high profile criminal tomorrow. 6

“Flipping” people on the very low-end or periphery of a larger criminal enterprise by using the carrot of a sweet plea deal in concert with the stick of over-incarceration is not justice. It’s harassment. More people would see it that way if this country wasn’t so in love with prosecutors, and the media spent less time celebrating the narratives prosecutors spin for them.7

Often, the attempts to build a case this way don’t even work: the small-time criminal doesn’t actually know anything useful; the promised charges against the boss or kingpin never come to pass or, if they do, it’s because the target got caught committing some other crime (see: Al Capone for tax evasion, or Donald Trump for espionage). Often, putting the screws to all of the people on the bottom rung of the ladder leads nowhere. 8

To be clear, I’m not against collective responsibility for criminal enterprises: I think the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which allows the government to charge people who participate in a criminal enterprise with all the crimes committed in furtherance of that enterprise, is a good law. And there are times when unraveling a highly organized criminal venture requires slowly pulling at threads until something breaks. But “highly organized” is not how I’d describe any of Trump’s crimes, or his coup attempt. This was less, “Oh no, the kingpin is using burner phones to evade our wiretaps,” and more “Did that guy just call for an attack on the government on live television?” I just think that bringing the full weight of the Department of Justice down on the heads of relatively powerless rioters in the hopes of maybe somehow possibly collecting evidence against the man who tried to prod them to rebellion is an unjust and, frankly, cowardly method of prosecution. 9

Garland followed the first part of the prosecutorial script: he duly rounded up many of the January 6 rioters—rioters that Chris Wray let walk away on January 6 when they all should have been arrested on the spot—and charged them with crimes. People on the lowest rungs felt the full measure of federal prosecution—and, it is worth noting, these people do, so far, seem less inclined to commit additional violence in the service of Trump.10

Rounding up rioters, however, was the easy part. Garland may want the world to believe that there was always some grand plan to move from the rioters to the man who set them on their violent path, but as one DOJ official grumbled to the Post, “at some point, there was no ladder from here to there.” The so-called “cautious” or “methodical” approach to prosecuting Trump effectively involved bringing the hammer down on guys wearing animal skins, without bringing that same prosecutorial zeal to Trump, his staff, his cronies, his children, or other politically connected Republicans. 11

In fact, the idea that January 6 rioters were going to have anything useful to give the DOJ about Trump was always a fantasy. Those MAGA people took their cues from Trump’s public statements. He wasn’t in “secret” communication with his forces. He doesn’t even like his forces: he thinks they’re useful idiots who exist solely for the benefit of his own ego. The rioters weren’t the bottom rung of a vast criminal enterprise, they were the violence the vast criminal enterprise was using as a threat. 12

Moreover, any good prosecutor would have known that a ladder investigation takes a lot of time, vastly more than Garland had. When prosecutors do successfully use the method of flipping people all the way to the top, it can take years. But Garland didn’t have years to go from Capitol rioter to former president. He had, at a maximum, two years to investigate, charge, and convict Trump for a crime that would have triggered the 14th Amendment’s prohibition on traitors running for office again. That was always the true event horizon: convict Trump before he could run again. By starting with the rioters, Garland all but doomed us to have to fight Trump through another election. 13

Garland’s failure at the Justice Department is all the more obvious because there was, in fact, one institution that did conduct a thorough and speedy ladder investigation while he was simply claiming to do that: The House Select Committee to Investigate January 6. It was the Select Committee, not Garland, that started its investigation by interviewing the people in Trump’s orbit as a way to build toward Trump. They were not wasting time on rioters, and they didn’t let the fear of appearing “political” distract them from the truth. They were talking to people like Trump’s campaign manager, Bill Stepian; Trump lawyers, Pat Cippolone and Bill Barr; Trump advisors like Boris Epshteyn and Peter Navarro; and, of course, White House special assistant Cassidy Hutchinson. 14

This was the true bottom-up investigation, and it had nothing to do with Garland. It should also be noted that many of the people who talked to Congress did so voluntarily, or at the behest of a normal investigative subpoena. Most of them did not need to be charged with a crime and flipped to offer testimony. 15

The January 6 Committee proves that nobody needed to start with rioters or threaten them with incarceration to conduct a full investigation into Donald Trump’s role in the coup attempt. Punishing the rioters for their crimes was not a necessary first step before punishing Trump for his. All that was needed was public servants dedicated to bringing Trump to justice as opposed to protecting their own backsides from accusations of playing politics. Hell, Liz Cheney would have run the Justice Department with more integrity and fearlessness than Merrick Garland has: she’d have been great at it, at least until she decided to torture Mark Meadows for his cell phone password. She would have investigated Trump instead of banning prosecutors from “using the T word.” 16

Once the January 6 Committee did the work that Garland refused to do, he was forced to act. And by “act,” I of course mean he decided to appoint Jack Smith to handle the Trump espionage case (after Garland spent months asking super nicely for Trump to give back the boxes he stole), and eventually made the January 6 investigation Smith’s responsibility as well. Garland appears to be obsessed with avoiding the perception that he was committing the partisan sin of doing his goddamn job. 17

Going forward, a lot of people will want to give Garland credit for the work Jack Smith does. And still more people will forgive all of Garland’s attempts to avoid prosecuting Trump if Trump ends up in jail anyway. 18

I will not be one of those people. Garland, Monaco, and Wray all decided from the outset to focus on the deplorable people who attacked the Capitol instead of the man who sent them there. Those people committed crimes, but focusing on them was never the smart or methodical way to build a case against Trump. It was cowardly, and it was a choice that put political optics ahead of justice and accountability. 19

I hope the next Democratic administration appoints Merrick Garland to dog-catcher—because I like dogs, and I like to see them run free.20

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14834
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2023 9:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ahh they finally agree with me. took smith just 8 months to have the goods on them. again grand jury indictments,

Remember on Clinton ultra partisan Barr and Kavanaugh and soon spent 6 or more YEARS and could not get one grand jury indictment on him or his wife.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?&q=I+don%27t+buy+his+excuses%27+honig&view=detail&mid=728A1970E107043D1190728A1970E107043D1190&FORM=VDRVSR&rvsmid=4D4709E14C189B0DEE704D4709E14C189B0DEE70&ajaxhist=0

'I don't buy his excuses': Honig criticizes Garland for delay in Trump case

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14834
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2024 1:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

as I noted I wanted Garland gone first year...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/merrick-garland-needs-to-be-thanked-for-his-service-and-shown-the-door/ar-BB1i5i9R?ocid=winp2fptaskbar&cvid=c8b0122d22ff44479369fe129887d4b5&ei=16

[size=20][b]I have come to the sad conclusion that, like Brian Wilson, Attorney General Merrick Garland just wasn't made for these times, and, like Tom Hagen, he's just not a wartime consigliere. I hung in there longer than most people I know. But, this week, the case against him got overwhelming. The man needs to be thanked for his service and then shown the door.

He is not equipped to use all the tools god gave the Department of Justice to thwart the genuine threat to the Republic that is El Caudillo del Mar-A-Lago, and the dangerous political climate he has created. The former president* should have been charged federally with insurrection literally years ago. (Hell, during Thursday's oral arguments in the Supreme Court concerning the former president*'s eligibility under the 14th Amendment, even Justice Brett Kavanaugh wondered why he hadn't been so charged, and Kavanaugh used to work for Ken Starr, if we're talking about using all the DOJ's tools at your disposal.) The DOJ should have gone hammer-and-tongs after all the members of Congress who had the slightest connection with the insurrection. Somebody higher than the bear spray crowd should have been arrested and held until trial. Some of the expensive loafers should have been confiscated during the booking process rather than all those duckboots.
Related video: Attorney General Garland announces completion of investigation in Biden's classified docs case (NBC News)
Special Counsel Robert her this new letter just says that
As diligent as Jack Smith has been, and god save the good work, he shouldn't have been necessary. This business didn't need a special counsel. It needed the Attorney General and the FBI right from jump. It should have been the very first item on Garland's plate when he walked in the door. And he's spent nearly four years faffing around until Republican congresscritters, some of whom had very curious connections to the events of that day, feel free to call the thugs and vandals, "political prisoners," and we've even come to arguing over whether or not the violence of that day constituted an "insurrection." Mother of god, the former president* is even money to be the next president, and the only real obstacle in his way seems to be whether or not his coronary arteries will do good service.

Thursday was the end for me. Appointing a Republican hack like Robert Hur to "investigate" the non-crimes of the president was bad enough, but then to allow Hur to pile on a political hit piece about the president's memory, thereby normalizing one of the former president*'s attack lines on DOJ stationery, is not admirably fair-minded, it's constitutionally suicidal. God save us from the fair-minded. They'll kill the country and wonder how they did it.[/quote]

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group