BANNED posters to "Current Events LIBERALS won't like" can post here...

[Centerleftfl]

It's widely known that the American left was worthless during the Cold War to the point that Khrushchev labeled them Useful Idiots. Leaving aside the outright Marxists who sometimes infiltrated government (like Harry Dexter White, Alger Hiss, and the Rosenbergs), they were a constant ball-and-chain that attempted to slow down our anticommunist policies. The realization that Obama was colluding with Russia in 2012 was a sign that the left had never really abandoned it's pro-Russia sentiments. Crooked Hillary even colluded with them in 2016 to get dirt on Trump (ironically).

So MANY LIES within a single paragraph, how do you do it?

 

[Centerleftfl]

Like the Meuller report?

How do we know, WE haven't seen it yet. Only that which TRUMP has deemed seeable.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Like the Meuller report?

Are you talking about the Mueller report where Trump is now trying to hide all the evidence by refusing to release any of it?

 

[dukkha]

Are you talking about the Mueller report where Trump is now trying to hide all the evidence by refusing to release any of it?

including grand jury testimony? National Security redactions ( which can be viewed by Gang of 8 )

 

[Centerleftfl]

You presented a Fake News site, that doesn't count.

Are there any real news sites covering this?

Has FOX run it yet? That's THEIR standard for 'real' news. If FOX hasn't run with it, it is either a lie or even too embarrassing for them to go with.

 

[Centerleftfl]

Are you talking about the Mueller report where Trump is now trying to hide all the evidence by refusing to release any of it?

Yes.

 

[Centerleftfl]

He just called you out on your fake news site and that’s the best you have.

You just got your ass kicked

They NEVER get their assets kicked. Just ask them. How many days, how many ways can we say NO WONDER they like Trump.

 

[Yurt]

I don't want people messing up my trolling, by easily shutting it down.

K

 

[Centerleftfl]

The Deep State putting chemicals in the water to turn the friggin frogs gay!

You're kidding right? I hadn't heard THAT one. I swear that sounds like Michelle Bachmann. Remember her?

 

[reagansghost]

posters who ban other posters are cowards

 

[Centerleftfl]

That's certainly obvious. I'm betting in THEIR minds they think they are exerting 'power'?

It's not power or control, it's just stooopid and let me say again, chickenshit.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I was banned from a thread about a seventeen year old from Gaza who died from a gas grenade exploding in his face.........my comment is "that should teach the silly little twit not to throw rocks at soldiers with grenade launchers.......thank you for providing this forum........

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

including grand jury testimony? National Security redactions ( which can be viewed by Gang of 8 )

No. I am talking about the documents and interviews which were used to write the report.

 

[dukkha]

No. I am talking about the documents and interviews which were used to write the report.

those are Mueller's working doc.s - they include many ( 1.4 million released) by the WH - which would claim Executive privilege from Congress. Mueller was part of the executive branch and was enpowerd by an independent DoJ.

If Mueller chose not to draw a conclusion of his work, then that's on him -and doesn't just open up his
resources for use by Congress -especially for impeachment.

same with testimony - McGahn gave Mueller like 90 hours = -he's in no way bound to Congress to do it again
-much less the fact he was White House Counsel

 

[Centerleftfl]

Yes, no refutation, no evidence to refute the article. Just some loon who doesn't like the site.

Judicial Watch peddles batshit crazy--with legal filings. Crazy begats crazy. Klayman was nut. FITTON is a nut.

Now where's another (LEGITIMATE) SOURCE besides JW? I google it and all I get are JW matches.

This isn't hard people.


FITTON wikipedia search...

Zimmerman trial[edit]

In July 2013, Fitton gained widespread attention after a jury found George Zimmerman not guilty in the death of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida when Fitton appeared in numerous interviews claiming that the Obama administration's Department of Justice had sent representatives to Sanford following Martin’s death "to help organize and manage rallies and protests against George Zimmerman."[SUP][11][/SUP] PolitiFact rated Fitton's claim "mostly false."[SUP][11]
[/SUP]
Climate change[edit]

Fitton rejects the scientific consensus on climate change.[SUP][3][/SUP] He has said "There has been scandal after scandal involving climate data and we are skeptical of government agencies that won’t tell people what they are up to... I’m sure scientists are concerned that funding for dubious research will be cut, but the truth will win out in the end."[SUP][3][/SUP] Judicial Watch, which has claimed that climate science is "fraud science", has filed lawsuits seeking to force the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to release the correspondence of climate scientists who published a 2015 study in the journal Science.[SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][12][/SUP] The study had debunked one of the common claims made by those who reject the scientific consensus on climate change, namely that there existed global warming "hiatus" between 1998–2012.[SUP][4][/SUP] The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF), American Meteorological Society and Union of Concerned Scientists condemned Judicial Watch, saying that the disclosure of private communications between scientists "would harm (or halt altogether) government scientists' ability to collaborate with colleagues, damage the government's ability to recruit or retain top scientists, and deter critically important research into politically charged fields like climate change".[SUP][4][/SUP] The Judicial Watch lawsuit was inspired by Rep. Lamar Smith who accused the authors of the study of "alter[ing] data" to "get the politically correct results they want."[SUP][4]
[/SUP]
Support for Breitbart News[edit]

Judicial Watch has advertised for years on Breitbart News, the far-right website formerly run by Steve Bannon.[SUP][13][/SUP] The site was defended by Fitton against calls for advertisers to drop them for advertising. Fitton stated, "Liberal activists want to destroy Breitbart, but we won’t be cowed".[SUP][13]
[/SUP]
Voter fraud[edit]

Fitton said about voter fraud: "We have all heard about voter fraud and the attempts by liberal media organs like the New York Times and Ivory Tower academics to dismiss it as a nonexistent problem. But it is real, widespread, and substantial to the point that it can decide elections".[SUP][14][/SUP]
Russian interference in the 2016 election[edit]

In 2017, Judicial Watch helped to stoke Republican attacks against Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.[SUP][15][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] He has referred to the Mueller probe as a "coup" against Trump.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][16][/SUP] Trump retweeted Fitton's remarks about a coup; PolitiFact rated the assertion that the Mueller probe was a coup as "pants-on-fire" false.[SUP][1][/SUP] Trump frequently listens to Fitton and had mentioned Fitton at least five times in his tweets by August 2018, including a promotion of an upcoming Fitton appearance on Fox.[SUP][2][/SUP] According to Politico, "Fitton’s rhetoric is often indistinguishable from Trump’s."[SUP][2][/SUP] Fitton called for the Special Counsel investigation to be shut down, arguing that prosecutors in the probe were too biased against President Trump to conduct a credible investigation.[SUP][17][/SUP] Fitton furthermore called for shutting down the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) "because it was turned into a KGB-type operation by the Obama administration."[SUP][18][/SUP][SUP][19][/SUP] Newsweek rated the claim "false", stating that "there is no comparison between the FBI and KGB."[SUP][20][/SUP]

 

[dukkha]

In 2017, Judicial Watch helped to stoke Republican attacks against Special Counsel's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. He has referred to the Mueller probe as a "coup" against Trump.

it was a bureaucratic coup -and the Russian collusion ginned up by Brennan and Comey ( et all)
by the ficticous Steele dossier.

Wait for Horowitz on FISA abuse

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

those are Mueller's working doc.s - they include many ( 1.4 million released) by the WH - which would claim Executive privilege from Congress. Mueller was part of the executive branch and was enpowerd by an independent DoJ.

If Mueller chose not to draw a conclusion of his work, then that's on him -and doesn't just open up his
resources for use by Congress -especially for impeachment.

same with testimony - McGahn gave Mueller like 90 hours = -he's in no way bound to Congress to do it again
-much less the fact he was White House Counsel

Those documents and interviews are evidence. Your argument makes no sense in light of any court rulings or US history.

1. The President can't claim executive privilege for every document produced in the WH. The document must meet the criteria that it was used to help form policy decisions with direct contact with the President. (Thank the GOP Congress for this court ruling.)
2. Mueller as part of the executive branch is subject to Congress' power of oversight. Oversight includes the ability to see work product.
3. Mueller actually drew several conclusions, one of which was that Congress has the power to impeach a President for obstruction.
4. Congress power to subpoena for the purposes of impeachment is pretty much unlimited. See the USSC ruling in Nixon.
5. Testifying to an investigator in no way means that person no longer has to testify. (Where to you get your idiotic notions?)
6. Being WH counsel doesn't protect from testifying to Congress. It only means the President can claim executive privilege over any advice he gave the President. There is no such thing as blanket privilege.

 

[dukkha]

Those documents and interviews are evidence. Your argument makes no sense in light of any court rulings or US history.

evidence for Mueller - who produced the report.

1. The President can't claim executive privilege for every document produced in the WH. The document must meet the criteria that it was used to help form policy decisions with direct contact with the President. (Thank the GOP Congress for this court ruling.)

there were no claims for Mueller

2. Mueller as part of the executive branch is subject to Congress' power of oversight. Oversight includes the ability to see work product.

incorrect Mueller reports to the AG and the AG can release or not release
Congress cannot investigate unles it's an impeachment - so either impeach or get off the pot.

3. Mueller actually drew several conclusions, one of which was that Congress has the power to impeach a President for obstruction.

Mueller is not the final word, but i tend to agree - but there were no charges of Obstruction

4. Congress power to subpoena for the purposes of impeachment is pretty much unlimited. See the USSC ruling in Nixon.

these are not impeachment hearings

5. Testifying to an investigator in no way means that person no longer has to testify.

neither can witness be bagdered after a case is closed. The Mueller report is over, CONGRESS IS NOT AN "INVESTIGATOR" -as THESE ARE NOT IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS

(Where to you get your idiotic notions?)

whre do you get you elastic definitions from?

6. Being WH counsel doesn't protect from testifying to Congress. It only means the President can claim executive privilege over any advice he gave the President. There is no such thing as blanket privilege.

Rhodes refused to testify to Congress regarding Iran as well

The problem for Dems is that Mueller already covered this ground as an investigator.
Now Congress wants to investigater again and is not an investigative body, unless it'sduring Impeachment hearings.

Congress needs to impeach if it wants to investigate

 

[archives]

Those documents and interviews are evidence. Your argument makes no sense in light of any court rulings or US history.

1. The President can't claim executive privilege for every document produced in the WH. The document must meet the criteria that it was used to help form policy decisions with direct contact with the President. (Thank the GOP Congress for this court ruling.)
2. Mueller as part of the executive branch is subject to Congress' power of oversight. Oversight includes the ability to see work product.
3. Mueller actually drew several conclusions, one of which was that Congress has the power to impeach a President for obstruction.
4. Congress power to subpoena for the purposes of impeachment is pretty much unlimited. See the USSC ruling in Nixon.
5. Testifying to an investigator in no way means that person no longer has to testify. (Where to you get your idiotic notions?)
6. Being WH counsel doesn't protect from testifying to Congress. It only means the President can claim executive privilege over any advice he gave the President. There is no such thing as blanket privilege.

Keep saying it, and I hate to admit it is true, but none of that matters

Trump, as Trump has always done, is going to litigate everything and anything with the goal being getting it to the Supreme Court. He isn't going to get any check from Justice Dept after he installed Barr "to cover his back," Fox and the demogogues will rationalize and echo his defense regardless of how absurd it may be, and we all know why "I like beer" Brett was appointed

Trump's playbook

 

[MSgt]

So MANY LIES within a single paragraph, how do you do it?

You dispute historical fact?