I'm constantly on the look-out for the dirt on Conservatives...

[j2k4]

Just read back thro' your posts for clues, discern for yourself which comments could have possibly made me take umbrage.

Which thread, please?

[manker]

Just read back thro' your posts for clues, discern for yourself which comments could have possibly made me take umbrage.

Which thread, please?

Take your pick, flowe






Nah, just this one.

[j2k4]

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.

This?

[manker]

Hint: Look at what you wrote just before I made the 'smug twat' comment.


I really was quite benevolent before that

[j2k4]

Hint: Look at what you wrote just before I made the 'smug twat' comment.


I really was quite benevolent before that

So I mistook your genuine ignorance on the matter for a parsing deficit?

You don't have the slightest idea what the Barrett Report is?

You can't read between lines that aren't there, but if you knew what it was to begin with, we wouldn't be having this disagreement.

In short, a Special Prosecutor was appointed to investigate the actions of a former Clinton cabinet official named Henry Cisneros, who was asked to resign over financial wrongdoing.

In the process of the investigation, the prosecutor (Barrett) discovered a cornucopia (as the story goes) of IRS abuses, intrusions, persecutions, ruinations, etc., along with a laundry-list of other financial trespasses, all at the behest of the Clinton administration or in aid of their cause.

The Clintons stonewalled the investigation while Bill was in office, and have continued to successfully fight release of the document since he's been gone.

The redacted version is nothing but a collection of words like "the", "and", "is", "were", and such with the nouns and verbs gone missing.

Lawyers only fight so hard over genuinely damaging information, manker.

Anyway, if you have been lacking this information, I apologize for causing your ferment, but you sounded more interested in denunciations than the real story.

After all, that is what I'm used to, and no matter our good relationship, you've not been shy with the tweak previously.

[manker]

Hint: Look at what you wrote just before I made the 'smug twat' comment.


I really was quite benevolent before that

So I mistook your genuine ignorance on the matter for a parsing deficit?

You don't have the slightest idea what the Barrett Report is?

You can't read between lines that aren't there, but if you knew what it was to begin with, we wouldn't be having this disagreement.

In short, a Special Prosecutor was appointed to investigate the actions of a former Clinton cabinet official named Henry Cisneros, who was asked to resign over financial wrongdoing.

In the process of the investigation, the prosecutor (Barrett) discovered a cornucopia (as the story goes) of IRS abuses, intrusions, persecutions, ruinations, etc., along with a laundry-list of other financial trespasses, all at the behest of the Clinton administration or in aid of their cause.

The Clintons stonewalled the investigation while Bill was in office, and have continued to successfully fight release of the document since he's been gone.

The redacted version is nothing but a collection of words like "the", "and", "is", "were", and such with the nouns and verbs gone missing.

Lawyers only fight so hard over genuinely damaging information, manker.

Anyway, if you have been lacking this information, I apologize for causing your ferment, but you sounded more interested in denunciations than the real story.

After all, that is what I'm used to, and no matter our good relationship, you've not been shy with the tweak previously.

See, now how hard was that. You giving me reasons as to why you think that the Barrett Report contains some pretty damning stuff.

I'd not heard of it before you invited us to Google for it, I did so as I wondered what it was. I read a bit and decided that since no-one (well, no-one that's talking) really knows what's in there, any judgment upon the content is premature - which is what I posted.

Further, it seemed to me on my swift perusal that no amount of 'stonewalling' could have stopped at least some of the allegations purported to lurk within from coming to light, at least after Clinton's tenure, but Barrett shut his Grand Juries down many years ago.

That appeared to me as him signaling defeat. Surely, if there was something there that could be proven, he would not have done that.


As I've stated, I really am not up on how Americans conduct these affairs - but I was offering my opinion on the matter. It got a bit tiresome after several flippant answers from yourself - so I fired a few back meself.

Good relationship unaffected

[j2k4]

Good relationship unaffected

I am glad of it.

[vidcc]

Doesn't it seem a little odd that after 2 years in charge of the investigation and as soon as the "crap is starting to hit the fan" Bush has offered the Abramoff prosecutor, a federal judgeship thus taking him off the case.

Nixon 2 the movie anyone?

[j2k4]

Doesn't it seem a little odd that after 2 years in charge of the investigation and as soon as the "crap is starting to hit the fan" Bush has offered the Abramoff prosecutor, a federal judgeship thus taking him off the case.

Nixon 2 the movie anyone?

For sure.

Everyone knows he takes the evidence with him when he goes, and there's no way they'd start from scratch...

[Busyman]

Doesn't it seem a little odd that after 2 years in charge of the investigation and as soon as the "crap is starting to hit the fan" Bush has offered the Abramoff prosecutor, a federal judgeship thus taking him off the case.

Nixon 2 the movie anyone?

For sure.

Everyone knows he takes the evidence with him when he goes, and there's no way they'd start from scratch...

It is still uncanny timing.

I loved Bush's reaction when he was questioned about Abramoff during a morning press conference.