The Democrats Aiding and Abetting in a Criminal Activity??

[Levianon17]

[QUOTE=Chateau Becot;1061391014]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

I think it's criminal as well. The Democrats Are Desperate. QUOTE]


Everybody is coming up with such clever ideas....for the Dimms answer to the MAGA cap.

I like this one, Levianon (no matter you did not intend for it to be their current and potential 2020 slogan):



TDAD
The Democrats
Are Desperate


Wonder if I should copyright this idea...? Never know what'll take off, right?

No don't copyright it. The Dems aren't worth it. Just let them waddle in their own pathetic existence.

[themystic]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Hey oeb - every time I see "DPST" I think it's shorthand for "dipshit" lol.

Just out of curiosity could you please refresh my memory... does it actually stand for Democrat Progressive Socialist Traitor?

Who gets credit for originating it - you?

What a joke. From the party that supports Putin, North Korea and Saudi Arabia. What a bunch of frauds. Who gets credit for originating that - you?

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by themystic

What a joke. From the party that supports Putin, North Korea and Saudi Arabia. What a bunch of frauds. Who gets credit for originating that - you?

The Democrats are a joke. From the party that supports Putin, North Korea and Saudi Arabia. What a bunch of frauds. Who gets credit for originating that - you?

[themystic]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

The Democrats are a joke. From the party that supports Putin, North Korea and Saudi Arabia. What a bunch of frauds. Who gets credit for originating that - you?

The Republicans are a joke. From the party that supports Putin, North Korea and Saudi Arabia. What a bunch of frauds. Who gets credit for originating that - you?

[themystic]

[QUOTE=Levianon17;1061391671]

Originally Posted by Chateau Becot

No don't copyright it. The Dems aren't worth it. Just let them waddle in their own pathetic existence.

Copyright it. The Reps are worth it. Just let them waddle in their own pathetic existence.

[the_real_Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

I disagree. A Law is something that is passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President. It is NOT a opinion passed by one Part of the Legislative Branch.

We have a Law on the books. It was passed by both Houses and signed into Law. The Democrats are attempting to compell the AG to break that Law.

If it is a matter of saying "fuck it, nobody cares about Laws", then they should just come out and say it.

Then empty the jails.

She shoots! She scores!

[rexdutchman]

Still looking for NOTHING all its about

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

She shoots! She scores!

she farts!


is there a smiley for farting???

[Hotrod511]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Did you learn that from watching CSPAN?

The dems ARE the party of hate. Just ask that Muslim bitch who yelled out "we're gonna impeach the motherf**cker!" That sounded rather hateful to me.

[lustylad]

Trolling the Mueller Report
Democrats lost on collusion. Now they’re inventing a coverup.
By The Editorial Board
April 3, 2019 7:24 p.m. ET


Democrats are still reeling from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s conclusion that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russians in 2016. But they’ve now hit upon a political comeback strategy: Accuse Attorney General William Barr of a coverup.

That’s the context for Wednesday’s decision by House Democrats to authorize subpoenas, on a partisan vote, demanding that Mr. Barr immediately hand over the entire Mueller report and its supporting evidence. This is intended to give the impression, abetted by a press corps that was fully invested in the collusion story, that Mr. Barr is somehow lying about Mr. Mueller’s real conclusions.

That’s preposterous, since Mr. Barr’s four-page letter quotes directly from Mr. Mueller’s report. The AG surely understood on releasing the summary of conclusions last week that he would be open to contradiction by Mr. Mueller if he took such liberties. Mr. Barr also knew he’d be called to testify before Congress once the rest of the report is released.

Mr. Barr has committed to releasing as much of the report as possible subject to Justice Department rules. He’s working with the special counsel’s office to make redactions required by grand-jury rules of secrecy, intelligence sources and methods, ongoing investigations, and “the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties.”

Under Justice rules relating to special counsels, Mr. Barr has no obligation to provide anything beyond notifying Congress when an investigation has started or concluded, and whether the AG overruled a special counsel’s decisions. Mr. Barr’s notice to Congress that Mr. Mueller had completed his investigation said Mr. Mueller was not overruled.

Congress has no automatic right to more. The final subparagraph of DOJ’s rule governing special counsels reads: “The regulations in this part are not intended to, do not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity, by any person or entity, in any matter, civil, criminal or administrative.”

Mr. Barr has made clear that he appreciates the public interest in seeing as much of Mr. Mueller’s report as possible. Yet his categories of information for review aren’t frivolous or political inventions. The law protecting grand-jury secrecy is especially strict, as even Democrats admit.

House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff recently tweeted that “Barr should seek court approval (just like in Watergate) to allow the release of grand jury material. Redactions are unacceptable.” This is an acknowledgment that the government must apply to a judge for permission to disclose grand-jury proceedings.

A judge can grant release in certain circumstances—namely to government attorneys who need the information for their duties. None of the secrecy exceptions permit disclosure to Congress or the public. The purpose of this secrecy is to protect the innocent and encourage candor in grand-jury testimony.

It’s true that in 1974 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a federal judge’s decision to release a grand jury report to the House Judiciary Committee that was investigating Watergate. Such a sealed report—which juries can choose to produce—is different from raw grand-jury testimony, which is what Democrats are demanding now. The Supreme Court has never ruled on such a disclosure, so Democrats could be facing a long legal battle if Mr. Barr resists their subpoenas.

Mr. Barr should release as much of the report as possible, and on close calls he should side with public disclosure. But no one should think that Democrats are really worried about a coverup. They want to see an unredacted version before the public does so they can leak selected bits that allow them to use friendly media outlets to claim there really was collusion, or to tarnish Trump officials.

The nation is entitled to the Mueller facts in their proper context, not to selective leaks from Democrats trying to revive their dashed hopes of a collusion narrative that the Mueller probe found doesn’t exist.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trollin...rt-11554333841

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Trolling the Mueller Report
Democrats lost on collusion. Now they’re inventing a coverup.
By The Editorial Board
April 3, 2019 7:24 p.m. ET


Democrats are still reeling from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s conclusion that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russians in 2016. But they’ve now hit upon a political comeback strategy: Accuse Attorney General William Barr of a coverup.

That’s the context for Wednesday’s decision by House Democrats to authorize subpoenas, on a partisan vote, demanding that Mr. Barr immediately hand over the entire Mueller report and its supporting evidence. This is intended to give the impression, abetted by a press corps that was fully invested in the collusion story, that Mr. Barr is somehow lying about Mr. Mueller’s real conclusions.

That’s preposterous, since Mr. Barr’s four-page letter quotes directly from Mr. Mueller’s report. The AG surely understood on releasing the summary of conclusions last week that he would be open to contradiction by Mr. Mueller if he took such liberties. Mr. Barr also knew he’d be called to testify before Congress once the rest of the report is released.

Mr. Barr has committed to releasing as much of the report as possible subject to Justice Department rules. He’s working with the special counsel’s office to make redactions required by grand-jury rules of secrecy, intelligence sources and methods, ongoing investigations, and “the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties.”

Under Justice rules relating to special counsels, Mr. Barr has no obligation to provide anything beyond notifying Congress when an investigation has started or concluded, and whether the AG overruled a special counsel’s decisions. Mr. Barr’s notice to Congress that Mr. Mueller had completed his investigation said Mr. Mueller was not overruled.

Congress has no automatic right to more. The final subparagraph of DOJ’s rule governing special counsels reads: “The regulations in this part are not intended to, do not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity, by any person or entity, in any matter, civil, criminal or administrative.”

Mr. Barr has made clear that he appreciates the public interest in seeing as much of Mr. Mueller’s report as possible. Yet his categories of information for review aren’t frivolous or political inventions. The law protecting grand-jury secrecy is especially strict, as even Democrats admit.

House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff recently tweeted that “Barr should seek court approval (just like in Watergate) to allow the release of grand jury material. Redactions are unacceptable.” This is an acknowledgment that the government must apply to a judge for permission to disclose grand-jury proceedings.

A judge can grant release in certain circumstances—namely to government attorneys who need the information for their duties. None of the secrecy exceptions permit disclosure to Congress or the public. The purpose of this secrecy is to protect the innocent and encourage candor in grand-jury testimony.

It’s true that in 1974 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a federal judge’s decision to release a grand jury report to the House Judiciary Committee that was investigating Watergate. Such a sealed report—which juries can choose to produce—is different from raw grand-jury testimony, which is what Democrats are demanding now. The Supreme Court has never ruled on such a disclosure, so Democrats could be facing a long legal battle if Mr. Barr resists their subpoenas.

Mr. Barr should release as much of the report as possible, and on close calls he should side with public disclosure. But no one should think that Democrats are really worried about a coverup. They want to see an unredacted version before the public does so they can leak selected bits that allow them to use friendly media outlets to claim there really was collusion, or to tarnish Trump officials.

The nation is entitled to the Mueller facts in their proper context, not to selective leaks from Democrats trying to revive their dashed hopes of a collusion narrative that the Mueller probe found doesn’t exist.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trollin...rt-11554333841

Ah the old investigate the investigation ploy. the Dems have money and stupidity to burn. they can carry on! let's see how that plays out in 2020.


BAHHASAAAAAAA

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Trolling the Mueller Report
Democrats lost on collusion. Now they’re inventing a coverup.
By The Editorial Board
April 3, 2019 7:24 p.m. ET


Democrats are still reeling from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s conclusion that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russians in 2016. But they’ve now hit upon a political comeback strategy: Accuse Attorney General William Barr of a coverup.

That’s the context for Wednesday’s decision by House Democrats to authorize subpoenas, on a partisan vote, demanding that Mr. Barr immediately hand over the entire Mueller report and its supporting evidence. This is intended to give the impression, abetted by a press corps that was fully invested in the collusion story, that Mr. Barr is somehow lying about Mr. Mueller’s real conclusions.

That’s preposterous, since Mr. Barr’s four-page letter quotes directly from Mr. Mueller’s report. The AG surely understood on releasing the summary of conclusions last week that he would be open to contradiction by Mr. Mueller if he took such liberties. Mr. Barr also knew he’d be called to testify before Congress once the rest of the report is released.

Mr. Barr has committed to releasing as much of the report as possible subject to Justice Department rules. He’s working with the special counsel’s office to make redactions required by grand-jury rules of secrecy, intelligence sources and methods, ongoing investigations, and “the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties.”

Under Justice rules relating to special counsels, Mr. Barr has no obligation to provide anything beyond notifying Congress when an investigation has started or concluded, and whether the AG overruled a special counsel’s decisions. Mr. Barr’s notice to Congress that Mr. Mueller had completed his investigation said Mr. Mueller was not overruled.

Congress has no automatic right to more. The final subparagraph of DOJ’s rule governing special counsels reads: “The regulations in this part are not intended to, do not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity, by any person or entity, in any matter, civil, criminal or administrative.”

Mr. Barr has made clear that he appreciates the public interest in seeing as much of Mr. Mueller’s report as possible. Yet his categories of information for review aren’t frivolous or political inventions. The law protecting grand-jury secrecy is especially strict, as even Democrats admit.

House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff recently tweeted that “Barr should seek court approval (just like in Watergate) to allow the release of grand jury material. Redactions are unacceptable.” This is an acknowledgment that the government must apply to a judge for permission to disclose grand-jury proceedings.

A judge can grant release in certain circumstances—namely to government attorneys who need the information for their duties. None of the secrecy exceptions permit disclosure to Congress or the public. The purpose of this secrecy is to protect the innocent and encourage candor in grand-jury testimony.

It’s true that in 1974 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a federal judge’s decision to release a grand jury report to the House Judiciary Committee that was investigating Watergate. Such a sealed report—which juries can choose to produce—is different from raw grand-jury testimony, which is what Democrats are demanding now. The Supreme Court has never ruled on such a disclosure, so Democrats could be facing a long legal battle if Mr. Barr resists their subpoenas.

Mr. Barr should release as much of the report as possible, and on close calls he should side with public disclosure. But no one should think that Democrats are really worried about a coverup. They want to see an unredacted version before the public does so they can leak selected bits that allow them to use friendly media outlets to claim there really was collusion, or to tarnish Trump officials.

The nation is entitled to the Mueller facts in their proper context, not to selective leaks from Democrats trying to revive their dashed hopes of a collusion narrative that the Mueller probe found doesn’t exist.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trollin...rt-11554333841

This nails it.

With a willing Press, the Democrats keep the ball bouncing.

No better evidence of this is when a few days ago, the headline was....."Anonymous members of the Mueller Team say report much more damaging to President Trump".

They pulled out the tried and true, "anonymous source", "unnamed person" and "people close to" to simply make shit up.

[themystic]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

This nails it.

With a willing Press, the Democrats keep the ball bouncing.

No better evidence of this is when a few days ago, the headline was....."Anonymous members of the Mueller Team say report much more damaging to President Trump".

They pulled out the tried and true, "anonymous source", "unnamed person" and "people close to" to simply make shit up.

Then release the report. Release the taxes. Just because Trump supporters don't give a fuck what the scum bag does, others think for themselves. What a bunch of fucking frauds

[bamscram]

[Hotrod511]

Originally Posted by hamscram

Don't you know how to resize an image