LaxPower Back-Up Stick

OCanada wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 9:06 am There is no law preventing Barr from releasing the entire report to the best of my knowledge.

Why are republicans so interested in hiding something that totally exonerates POTUS? Totally!!! Why try to hide the tax returns he promised to release? Why threaten schools who hold his academic records? Why execute multiple non-disclosure agreements with women? Why falsify financial data? If he is the smartest, most transparent, most honest etc ever?

There actually is one that was passed after the Clinton impeachment. There is a report that is avalible that is 98-99% unredacted yet no D has bothered to read it. Nadler is just grandstanding wasting time.

laxman3221 wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 9:21 am

OCanada wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 9:06 am There is no law preventing Barr from releasing the entire report to the best of my knowledge.

Why are republicans so interested in hiding something that totally exonerates POTUS? Totally!!! Why try to hide the tax returns he promised to release? Why threaten schools who hold his academic records? Why execute multiple non-disclosure agreements with women? Why falsify financial data? If he is the smartest, most transparent, most honest etc ever?

There actually is one that was passed after the Clinton impeachment. There is a report that is avalible that is 98-99% unredacted yet no D has bothered to read it. Nadler is just grandstanding wasting time.

Wrong, only the Special Counsel is limited in his actions.

Correct CU

CU88 wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 9:59 am

laxman3221 wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 9:21 am

OCanada wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 9:06 am There is no law preventing Barr from releasing the entire report to the best of my knowledge.

Why are republicans so interested in hiding something that totally exonerates POTUS? Totally!!! Why try to hide the tax returns he promised to release? Why threaten schools who hold his academic records? Why execute multiple non-disclosure agreements with women? Why falsify financial data? If he is the smartest, most transparent, most honest etc ever?

There actually is one that was passed after the Clinton impeachment. There is a report that is avalible that is 98-99% unredacted yet no D has bothered to read it. Nadler is just grandstanding wasting time.

Wrong, only the Special Counsel is limited in his actions.

I think the democrat’s witnesses have a little more understanding of the law than you two.

The Democratic witnesses at the House Judiciary Committee hearing testified that the subpoena committee Democrats issued to AG Barr requires him to violate the law in order to comply.

https://twitter.com/reparmstrongnd/stat ... 00067?s=21

laxman3221 wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 11:48 am

CU88 wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 9:59 am

laxman3221 wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 9:21 am

OCanada wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 9:06 am There is no law preventing Barr from releasing the entire report to the best of my knowledge.

Why are republicans so interested in hiding something that totally exonerates POTUS? Totally!!! Why try to hide the tax returns he promised to release? Why threaten schools who hold his academic records? Why execute multiple non-disclosure agreements with women? Why falsify financial data? If he is the smartest, most transparent, most honest etc ever?

There actually is one that was passed after the Clinton impeachment. There is a report that is avalible that is 98-99% unredacted yet no D has bothered to read it. Nadler is just grandstanding wasting time.

Wrong, only the Special Counsel is limited in his actions.

I think the democrat’s witnesses have a little more understanding of the law than you two.

The Democratic witnesses at the House Judiciary Committee hearing testified that the subpoena committee Democrats issued to AG Barr requires him to violate the law in order to comply.

https://twitter.com/reparmstrongnd/stat ... 00067?s=21

HA HA HA. You are quoting a friend of a friend on twitter. That sounds legit. LOL.

The question is, can Barr release the full report, and the answer is yes. Barr himself said that he would limit the report for these reasons:

"WHY DID BARR NOT SIMPLY RELEASE THE WHOLE REPORT?

Barr told lawmakers in a March 29 letter that he was making “redactions that are required” before releasing the Mueller report. He cited four reasons for redactions: protecting secret grand jury proceedings; safeguarding intelligence-gathering sources and methods; shielding material that could affect ongoing investigations; and protecting information that would unduly infringe on personal privacy and reputations."

He can release the full report to Congress, where they all have security clearance to cover any of those four concerns.

Congress may have the proper levels of clearance, or whatever, to read the full un-redacted report. But, does anyone trust them to not leak it's contents. You can start with talking to Dr. Ford about trusting members of Congress.

ABV 8.3% wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 1:27 pm

Congress may have the proper levels of clearance, or whatever, to read the full un-redacted report. But, does anyone trust them to not leak it's contents. You can start with talking to Dr. Ford about trusting members of Congress.

Certainly fair to be concerned, but that doesn’t excuse refusing a subpoena.

CU88 wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 1:22 pm

laxman3221 wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 11:48 am

CU88 wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 9:59 am

laxman3221 wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 9:21 am

OCanada wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 9:06 am There is no law preventing Barr from releasing the entire report to the best of my knowledge.

Why are republicans so interested in hiding something that totally exonerates POTUS? Totally!!! Why try to hide the tax returns he promised to release? Why threaten schools who hold his academic records? Why execute multiple non-disclosure agreements with women? Why falsify financial data? If he is the smartest, most transparent, most honest etc ever?

There actually is one that was passed after the Clinton impeachment. There is a report that is avalible that is 98-99% unredacted yet no D has bothered to read it. Nadler is just grandstanding wasting time.

Wrong, only the Special Counsel is limited in his actions.

I think the democrat’s witnesses have a little more understanding of the law than you two.

The Democratic witnesses at the House Judiciary Committee hearing testified that the subpoena committee Democrats issued to AG Barr requires him to violate the law in order to comply.

https://twitter.com/reparmstrongnd/stat ... 00067?s=21

HA HA HA. You are quoting a friend of a friend on twitter. That sounds legit. LOL.

The question is, can Barr release the full report, and the answer is yes. Barr himself said that he would limit the report for these reasons:

"WHY DID BARR NOT SIMPLY RELEASE THE WHOLE REPORT?

Barr told lawmakers in a March 29 letter that he was making “redactions that are required” before releasing the Mueller report. He cited four reasons for redactions: protecting secret grand jury proceedings; safeguarding intelligence-gathering sources and methods; shielding material that could affect ongoing investigations; and protecting information that would unduly infringe on personal privacy and reputations."

He can release the full report to Congress, where they all have security clearance to cover any of those four concerns.

Ummm... its congressional witnesses from a congressional hearing on video posted by a congressman. Not a friend of a friend. They all agreed he couldn’t and would be breaking the law if he did, ya know leagal people who know tons more than you about the law. But you do you and keep saying he can.

laxman3221 wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 3:32 pm

CU88 wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 1:22 pm

laxman3221 wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 11:48 am

CU88 wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 9:59 am

laxman3221 wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 9:21 am

OCanada wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 9:06 am There is no law preventing Barr from releasing the entire report to the best of my knowledge.

Why are republicans so interested in hiding something that totally exonerates POTUS? Totally!!! Why try to hide the tax returns he promised to release? Why threaten schools who hold his academic records? Why execute multiple non-disclosure agreements with women? Why falsify financial data? If he is the smartest, most transparent, most honest etc ever?

There actually is one that was passed after the Clinton impeachment. There is a report that is avalible that is 98-99% unredacted yet no D has bothered to read it. Nadler is just grandstanding wasting time.

Wrong, only the Special Counsel is limited in his actions.

I think the democrat’s witnesses have a little more understanding of the law than you two.

The Democratic witnesses at the House Judiciary Committee hearing testified that the subpoena committee Democrats issued to AG Barr requires him to violate the law in order to comply.

https://twitter.com/reparmstrongnd/stat ... 00067?s=21

HA HA HA. You are quoting a friend of a friend on twitter. That sounds legit. LOL.

The question is, can Barr release the full report, and the answer is yes. Barr himself said that he would limit the report for these reasons:

"WHY DID BARR NOT SIMPLY RELEASE THE WHOLE REPORT?

Barr told lawmakers in a March 29 letter that he was making “redactions that are required” before releasing the Mueller report. He cited four reasons for redactions: protecting secret grand jury proceedings; safeguarding intelligence-gathering sources and methods; shielding material that could affect ongoing investigations; and protecting information that would unduly infringe on personal privacy and reputations."

He can release the full report to Congress, where they all have security clearance to cover any of those four concerns.

Ummm... its congressional witnesses from a congressional hearing on video posted by a congressman. Not a friend of a friend. They all agreed he couldn’t and would be breaking the law if he did, ya know leagal people who know tons more than you about the law. But you do you and keep saying he can.

good lord, did you even bother to listen to what the witnesses said?
Despite the cutting of the tape to try to make it sound otherwise, they very clearly said that Barr can simply ask the court for permission. It's up to the court as to whether he can then provide the information in full to the public.

Follow the law, ask for permission. Simple.

Of course, if the court says no, then that's another matter.

But Barr refuses to ask. Cover-up continues.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 3:48 pm

laxman3221 wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 3:32 pm

CU88 wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 1:22 pm

laxman3221 wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 11:48 am

CU88 wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 9:59 am

laxman3221 wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 9:21 am

OCanada wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 9:06 am There is no law preventing Barr from releasing the entire report to the best of my knowledge.

Why are republicans so interested in hiding something that totally exonerates POTUS? Totally!!! Why try to hide the tax returns he promised to release? Why threaten schools who hold his academic records? Why execute multiple non-disclosure agreements with women? Why falsify financial data? If he is the smartest, most transparent, most honest etc ever?

There actually is one that was passed after the Clinton impeachment. There is a report that is avalible that is 98-99% unredacted yet no D has bothered to read it. Nadler is just grandstanding wasting time.

Wrong, only the Special Counsel is limited in his actions.

I think the democrat’s witnesses have a little more understanding of the law than you two.

The Democratic witnesses at the House Judiciary Committee hearing testified that the subpoena committee Democrats issued to AG Barr requires him to violate the law in order to comply.

https://twitter.com/reparmstrongnd/stat ... 00067?s=21

HA HA HA. You are quoting a friend of a friend on twitter. That sounds legit. LOL.

The question is, can Barr release the full report, and the answer is yes. Barr himself said that he would limit the report for these reasons:

"WHY DID BARR NOT SIMPLY RELEASE THE WHOLE REPORT?

Barr told lawmakers in a March 29 letter that he was making “redactions that are required” before releasing the Mueller report. He cited four reasons for redactions: protecting secret grand jury proceedings; safeguarding intelligence-gathering sources and methods; shielding material that could affect ongoing investigations; and protecting information that would unduly infringe on personal privacy and reputations."

He can release the full report to Congress, where they all have security clearance to cover any of those four concerns.

Ummm... its congressional witnesses from a congressional hearing on video posted by a congressman. Not a friend of a friend. They all agreed he couldn’t and would be breaking the law if he did, ya know leagal people who know tons more than you about the law. But you do you and keep saying he can.

good lord, did you even bother to listen to what the witnesses said?
Despite the cutting of the tape to try to make it sound otherwise, they very clearly said that Barr can simply ask the court for permission. It's up to the court as to whether he can then provide the information in full to the public.

Follow the law, ask for permission. Simple.

Of course, if the court says no, then that's another matter.

But Barr refuses to ask. Cover-up continues.

To realease it under subpoena would be illegal. He has no duty to go ask. It’s his decision. Trump should just do what Obama did and declare Executive privilege over everything.

Just drama over 1 fully black out sentence and 7 or 8 partial. Jerry must think their is gold in there or he is just getting the clown car supporters jimmies all russled up.

get it to x:
Highly suggest that if you are in State College - Creamery - in the middle of campus. I am married to an engineer who is a PSU grad and reason for the season football tix - frugal - that is the splurge on home games, rest of the time it is the two for one bucket specials - I will trade you the coconut for peachy Paterino;

MD:
I am not sure what business people you deal with. Jobs was the biggest jerk I have ever met and I have met allot of them. Bill Gates and Warren are no saints either and I will add Zuck and the twitter guy.

Admin - thank you for bringing this back and your humor on the tweets and time out box and hopefully no whistle for me. You do a great job and now I am cow towning

Barr IMHO is gonna mock and eat up pretty much anyone who gets in his way.......now the roles are reversed and it should be fun to watch. MD I am highly and very seriously doubting about his nads shaking a hand

Many people get the elite people do not like the guy......get it. Unfortunately you gotta change the scoreboard and with ALL the whining it ain't gonna happen. Whining and subpoenas are not gonna change it IMHO.

IN A BID TO JETTISON FLYNN, TRUMP SUGGESTS HOPE HICKS AND STEVE BANNON LIED TO THE FBI

"No lesser Trump supporter than Bannon says that at the time Mike Flynn called up the Russian Ambassador and undermined the policy the President of the United States had just implemented, Trump was already concerned about the warnings that Obama gave him.

As I have noted, the evidence in the Mueller Report — as well as the silences about most earlier things Flynn did that raised counterintelligence concerns — suggest that Mueller has to believe that Flynn did what he did with Trump’s blessing. Otherwise Mueller would have had abundant evidence that Flynn, while freelancing, hiding that he was freelancing, and lying about it to the FBI, did things that directly benefitted the Russian state and undermined US policy.

Sullivan’s moves (which may be an attempt to explain why he raised such sharp questions about Flynn’s loyalty last December) may reveal evidence to substantiate that.

Which, in turn, may be why Trump is accusing two of his closest aides of lying to the FBI to pretend he didn’t get the warning from Obama they say he did."

..

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 6:31 pm N A BID TO JETTISON FLYNN, TRUMP SUGGESTS HOPE HICKS AND STEVE BANNON LIED TO THE FBI

"No lesser Trump supporter than Bannon says that at the time Mike Flynn called up the Russian Ambassador and undermined the policy the President of the United States had just implemented, Trump was already concerned about the warnings that Obama gave him.

As I have noted, the evidence in the Mueller Report — as well as the silences about most earlier things Flynn did that raised counterintelligence concerns — suggest that Mueller has to believe that Flynn did what he did with Trump’s blessing. Otherwise Mueller would have had abundant evidence that Flynn, while freelancing, hiding that he was freelancing, and lying about it to the FBI, did things that directly benefitted the Russian state and undermined US policy.

Sullivan’s moves (which may be an attempt to explain why he raised such sharp questions about Flynn’s loyalty last December) may reveal evidence to substantiate that.

Which, in turn, may be why Trump is accusing two of his closest aides of lying to the FBI to pretend he didn’t get the warning from Obama they say he did."

Trump's asking -- if you were surveilling & investigating Flynn all that time, you had to have good cause to do it (& violate his privacy).
So why didn't you warn me sooner & provide evidence ?

If the IC had anything on Flynn, Mueller wouldn't recommend zero jail time for a bogus false statement charge. He'd get at least 6 mos or an espionage charge.

The IC feared Flynn because he wanted better relations with Russia, to go hard after militant Islamists, & he threatened the DC IC's rice bowls. That's why Clapper ran him out of DIA early. Flynn coming back, sitting on Trump's shoulder, was their worst nightmare, so they took him out. Flynn was the appetizer, Trump was the entree.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 3:01 pm

ABV 8.3% wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 1:27 pm

Congress may have the proper levels of clearance, or whatever, to read the full un-redacted report. But, does anyone trust them to not leak it's contents. You can start with talking to Dr. Ford about trusting members of Congress.

Certainly fair to be concerned, but that doesn’t excuse refusing a subpoena.

https://nypost.com/2016/09/13/tech-guy- ... -subpoena/ You mean like he did? With all due respect MD I have had nothing but contempt for Republicans my entire life. You are one f***ing strange bird when it comes to someone who claims to have been a Republican his entire life. Out of my personal curiosity who is your ideal Republican savior of your party? That is assuming that DJT is not in the running. IS IT MITTENS???

Leaking reports. Irony abounds. Trunp is one of the great leaders of all time. Nunes and Gym Jordan were leaking to the WH. The staff at the WH leaks consistently. And leaking a report that exonerates the president is a problem? Or does the report contain information crimes were committed and therefore an effort to keep It hidden from view is necessary?

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 10:10 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 3:01 pm

ABV 8.3% wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 1:27 pm

Congress may have the proper levels of clearance, or whatever, to read the full un-redacted report. But, does anyone trust them to not leak it's contents. You can start with talking to Dr. Ford about trusting members of Congress.

Certainly fair to be concerned, but that doesn’t excuse refusing a subpoena.

https://nypost.com/2016/09/13/tech-guy- ... -subpoena/ You mean like he did? With all due respect MD I have had nothing but contempt for Republicans my entire life. You are one f***ing strange bird when it comes to someone who claims to have been a Republican his entire life. Out of my personal curiosity who is your ideal Republican savior of your party? That is assuming that DJT is not in the running. IS IT MITTENS???

I agree, ignore a subpoena, contempt...should lead to fines and'/or jail.
Of course, if you don't want to answer questions, plead the 5th...that's your right.
Would be interesting if Don Jr placed the fifth, right?

I'm having difficulty finding someone in DC exciting on the GOP side right now as so many are so busy kissing Trump's butt or ducking and hiding.
Like my Governor though.

OCanada wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2019 7:09 am Leaking reports. Irony abounds. Trunp is one of the great leaders of all time. Nunes and Gym Jordan were leaking to the WH. The staff at the WH leaks consistently. And leaking a report that exonerates the president is a problem? Or does the report contain information crimes were committed and therefore an effort to keep It hidden from view is necessary?

Gym Jordan is a liar. I see the old Dr. at Ohio State that the wrestlers complained about is facing charges for 177 incidents....Rolled up sleeves Jim didn’t know nothing. I went to school with clowns like Gym. A hayseed from a hayseed town that has a small world view. A heavily gerrymandered district keeps him in office. Just look what areas his district avoids. Shameful.

The good Dr. won't be facing any charges - he committed suicide some years ago. However, OSU faces perhaps several hundreds of millions in legal settlement expenses...

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2019 2:49 pm The good Dr. won't be facing any charges - he committed suicide some years ago. However, OSU faces perhaps several hundreds of millions in legal settlement expenses...

Yes. Suicide in 2004. There were 177 incidents. Gym Jordan couldn’t remember although his wrestlers and everyone else did. Hayseed politician.

Salty -- how could a reliable, midwestern tea party republican like Justin Amash so badly misread the Mueller Report? Why does he not understand this was all hoax initiated by HRC and Fusion GPS, and the Mueller Report exonerates Trump? Can you get IG Horowitz to investigate this guy? He must've been hacked - needs to change his password or something. https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/ ... 5952236546