funjumper101 15 #1 Posted April 12, 2019 The gullibility of the reich wing nitwits knows no bounds. Barr says the Mueller report has nothing? Law Professor Orin Kerr writes on twitter - Imagine if the Starr Report had been provided only to President Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, who then read it privately and published a 4-page letter based on her private reading stating her conclusion that President Clinton committed no crimes. <<< End The Riech wing media and pundits would have gone INSANE. It is NOT funny how the "morals and ethics" of the Reich wing are so fungible. It is completely insane that so many people go along with the hypocrisy. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #3 April 13, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, funjumper101 said: The gullibility of the reich wing nitwits knows no bounds. Barr says the Mueller report has nothing? Law Professor Orin Kerr writes on twitter - Imagine if the Starr Report had been provided only to President Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, who then read it privately and published a 4-page letter based on her private reading stating her conclusion that President Clinton committed no crimes. <<< End The Riech wing media and pundits would have gone INSANE. It is NOT funny how the "morals and ethics" of the Reich wing are so fungible. It is completely insane that so many people go along with the hypocrisy. It is interesting to witness that childish, and immature name calling hasn't been out grown by some posters here. Edited April 13, 2019 by turtlespeed Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoink 321 #4 April 13, 2019 I agree. The name calling is detrimental to the post. But the point of the post still holds true. Why have an impartial investigation if it is funneled through a partisan political gatekeeper before release? Regardless of the side, the logic of it is stupid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #5 April 13, 2019 5 minutes ago, yoink said: I agree. The name calling is detrimental to the post. But the point of the post still holds true. Why have an impartial investigation if it is funneled through a partisan political gatekeeper before release? Regardless of the side, the logic of it is stupid. Agreed. But I seem to be able to tolerate Trump's corruption a lot more than I would have been able to tolerate Hillary's. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoink 321 #6 April 13, 2019 1 hour ago, turtlespeed said: Agreed. But I seem to be able to tolerate Trump's corruption a lot more than I would have been able to tolerate Hillary's. Interesting. Why? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,241 #7 April 13, 2019 5 hours ago, turtlespeed said: Agreed. But I seem to be able to tolerate Trump's corruption a lot more than I would have been able to tolerate Hillary's. That is the point of the thread... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,356 #8 April 13, 2019 17 hours ago, turtlespeed said: Agreed. But I seem to be able to tolerate Trump's corruption a lot more than I would have been able to tolerate Hillary's. Thanks for admitting that - and staying on topic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #9 April 14, 2019 11 hours ago, billvon said: Thanks for admitting that - and staying on topic. There was a topic? Who knew? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 232 #10 April 15, 2019 On 4/12/2019 at 6:05 PM, funjumper101 said: Law Professor Orin Kerr writes on twitter - Imagine if the Starr Report had been provided only to President Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, who then read it privately and published a 4-page letter based on her private reading stating her conclusion that President Clinton committed no crimes. Monica Lewinsky had a pretty funny reply to that: "If. Fucking. Only." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #11 April 15, 2019 1 hour ago, DJL said: Monica Lewinsky had a pretty funny reply to that: "If. Fucking. Only." So . . . is that for or against? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yobnoc 142 #12 April 16, 2019 (edited) On 4/14/2019 at 10:51 PM, turtlespeed said: So . . . is that for or against? My guess is that she would have preferred that over her entire life being stigmatized. That wherever she goes, people know her and recognize her and associate her with bumping uglies with the president. She was a bystander that was thrown under the bus by Ken Starr to try to make Clinton look bad. It was an ancillary investigation that had nothing to do with the initial investigation, and violates what republicans now say they are wholly in favor of: not putting damaging information out on public display for people who are not indicted in any crime. But...The precedent was set, by republicans. So...rules for thee, but not for me? Nah...Pandora's box is wide open. Can't wait for the breakneck speed with which republicans decry the next president or the next senate majority utilizing all the dirty tricks that they (republicans) came up with; going nuclear on everything and signing executive orders and defying the courts. Although, I don't have much faith in the Democratic leadership to actually do those things, at least not to the extent that mitch mcconnell has. Edit: They've already abandoned their manufactured outrage at executive orders. I remember clearly all the commotion about executive orders that Obama signed: "He's not a king!" "This is tyranny" Meanwhile, Trump has signed almost half as many in his first 2 years as Obama did in a full 8. Annnnnd.....where's the outrage again? Edited April 16, 2019 by yobnoc additional information Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites