Re: I'm constantly on the look-out for the dirt on Conservatives...
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
If we use anything other than google our searches will be monitored by the government..... hold out google...hold out.
As to Barret I suggest Clinton be voted out of office....oh wait.........
Oh, so if the one makes it to the end of one's term before being properly sorted, one skates?
A novel view.
Anything to preserve that legacy, huh? :P
On the contrary, I have stated many times before if Clinton broke the law he is not above it.
But I thought you would approve of sending the IRS after people...after all if they did no wrong.......
To this I will add that I dislike the presidential pardons
Re: I'm constantly on the look-out for the dirt on Conservatives...
Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
But if it holds up?
If it held up, or was thought to be solid enough to hold up - I presume it would have been in the redacted version.
That would be the general premis behind any redaction, yes?
Maybe the redacters are corrupt and decided to protect Clinton.
By my way of thinking, it has to be one or the other.
I kinda think it's probably the former - but then my understanding of how these things work in America is limited.
The redactions are fruit of the labors of scads of lawyers disposed to protect Clinton.
No security stuff involved.
Re: I'm constantly on the look-out for the dirt on Conservatives...
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
[
But I thought you would approve of sending the IRS after people...after all if they did no wrong.......
Awfully disingenuous of you, vid.
Re: I'm constantly on the look-out for the dirt on Conservatives...
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
If it held up, or was thought to be solid enough to hold up - I presume it would have been in the redacted version.
That would be the general premis behind any redaction, yes?
Maybe the redacters are corrupt and decided to protect Clinton.
By my way of thinking, it has to be one or the other.
I kinda think it's probably the former - but then my understanding of how these things work in America is limited.
The redactions are fruit of the labors of scads of lawyers disposed to protect Clinton.
No security stuff involved.
So, it's the former reason. They wouldn't hold up.
Thought so :)
Re: I'm constantly on the look-out for the dirt on Conservatives...
Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
The redactions are fruit of the labors of scads of lawyers disposed to protect Clinton.
No security stuff involved.
So, it's the former reason. They wouldn't hold up.
Thought so :)
You don't know enough to rod on the subject, so I'm left with naive or smartass as choices.
Both, more likely.
Re: I'm constantly on the look-out for the dirt on Conservatives...
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
[
But I thought you would approve of sending the IRS after people...after all if they did no wrong.......
Awfully disingenuous of you, vid.
Well you seem unconcerned about privacy re. wiretapping without warrants, only the guilty have something to worry about. So yes it may be a calculating statement but I am giving you the credit of not having double standards :P
Re: I'm constantly on the look-out for the dirt on Conservatives...
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
So, it's the former reason. They wouldn't hold up.
Thought so :)
You don't know enough to rod on the subject, so I'm left with
naive or
smartass as choices.
Both, more likely.
I already said that I don't know how these things work in America. By all means, look upon that as a lack of sophistication if you like. However, I put forward what I logically thought to be the case.
You appeared to confirm what I thought.
Are you intimating that this is not the case? If so, please expound upon how a lawyer, no matter by whom he was dispatched, can be corrupt and illegally cover-up bonafide, 100% confirmed factiods in a high profile report such as this.
The way I see it, if something happened and was uncovered by the report compilers - and evidence supported the claim - the lawyers would not be able to cover it up. Unless corruption is in evidence.
Re: I'm constantly on the look-out for the dirt on Conservatives...
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Awfully disingenuous of you, vid.
Well you seem unconcerned about privacy re. wiretapping without warrants, only the guilty have something to worry about. So yes it may be a calculating statement but I am giving you the credit of not having double standards :P
Oh, thank you, thank you.
Re: I'm constantly on the look-out for the dirt on Conservatives...
Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
please expound upon how a lawyer, no matter by whom he was dispatched, can be corrupt and illegally cover-up bonafide, 100% confirmed factiods in a high profile report such as this.
You also suffer a knowledge deficit as re: the "art" of American lawyering.
I haven't the time to explain that.
Re: I'm constantly on the look-out for the dirt on Conservatives...
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
please expound upon how a lawyer, no matter by whom he was dispatched, can be corrupt and illegally cover-up bonafide, 100% confirmed factiods in a high profile report such as this.
You also suffer a knowledge deficit as re: the "art" of American lawyering.
I haven't the time to explain
that.
It probably works in much the same way as it does over here.
The people who complied the Barret Report didn't have enough evidence to release all of their findings. They wouldn't have held up under the scrutiny of people employed to find fault within them.
Some of their assertions must have been watertight - hence the redacted report getting published. It appears that a lot of their other assertions were not watertight, since they weren't published along with the watertight stuff.
Hence their relagation to fodder for Conservative conjecture in the unpopular press.
