Okay. You are begging the question. The issue is “scope,” not “all”. The scope cannot include criminal accusations of people never tried or charged. That is fundamentally improper in addition to beyond outside the four corners of the Epstein subject.
Okay. You are begging the question. The issue is “scope,” not “all”. The scope cannot include criminal accusations of people never tried or charged. That is fundamentally improper in addition to beyond outside the four corners of the Epstein subject.
No, I'm not, and no, it isn't. You're bordering on flatly dishonest now. Peace.
Not releasing unsubstantiated criminal accusations is basic stuff. A statute can’t change this.
I’ll take this as a win. Peace.
Which subsection of 2(a) would cover a separate Trump crime?
@co-hoosier The controlling language in the intro to Sec 2 is "that relate to." The woman who named Trump in her abuse allegation claims that, when she was about 13 years-old, Epstein introduced her to Trump who subsequently assaulted her. As I said earlier, this falls squarely within the purview of the statute.
The FBI interviewed this Epstein and Trump accuser four times. Documents pertaining to the four interviews were indexed and assigned serial numbers in connection with the EFTA. Only the first interview, which doesn't mention Trump, is in the public database. The others have been withheld with no justification, to my knowledge, provided by the Justice Department as required by the statute.
Sec 2(a) 1, 4 and 7 apply.
https://twitter.com/JSweetLI/status/2027159432883278305
I have never rode a delta, but a guy I know likes his German one, Hase might be the brand.
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
You're so obviously wrong, I just don't understand you any longer.
It's really not that hard. Like Trump, COH is never wrong. (And if he is, it's time to change the subject or obfuscate.) Once he's staked out a position on any subject, be it law or politics or HVAC, COH's is the last word on the subject. Period.
LOL. I guess that settles it.
Of course, the implausibility of the accusations in question is irrelevant to the question actually being debated. The Transparency Act doesn't specify that only plausible documents should be released.
LOL. I guess that settles it.
Of course, the implausibility of the accusations in question is irrelevant to the question actually being debated. The Transparency Act doesn't specify that only plausible documents should be released.
If the Tweeter really has the scoop, why doesn't she identify the accuser? This is just unsubstantiated explicit claims about someone who is (supposedly) making unsubstantiated explicit claims.
Tangent... Evidently Hillary was asked about Pizzagate. If that's the case, then nothing should be off the table.
@oneeyedundertaker, just to reiterate the obvious, you’re almost as dumb as dbm and he’s the dumbest poster here. I’m sure you lower the IQ of every room you walk into, even empty ones. It’s a frickin’ embarrassment that you consider yourself a Republican.
You make me very sad. What happened to you? What is it about Trump that has caused you to become a completely different person? These are serious questions.I've listened to legal scholars talk about this for several hours and you're once again an outlier
In case it isn’t already clear, I’m not to impressed with lawyers who pontificate in media without ever being challenged by opposing counsel or judges. Those lawyers are observers, not practitioners. They don’t know how to make a convincing argument.
LOL. I guess that settles it.
Of course, the implausibility of the accusations in question is irrelevant to the question actually being debated. The Transparency Act doesn't specify that only plausible documents should be released.
If the Tweeter really has the scoop, why doesn't she identify the accuser? This is just unsubstantiated explicit claims about someone who is (supposedly) making unsubstantiated explicit claims.
Tangent... Evidently Hillary was asked about Pizzagate. If that's the case, then nothing should be off the table.
Just to be extra clear, I'm not saying anything should or should not be released morally, or logically. But by the clear letter of the law, virtually all of it must be released. That's what the law says. DOJ is breaking the law if they don't follow through. The wisdom of the law is not a debate I'm venturing into.
virtually all of it must be released.
That has been done. Trump accusations are not included in “it”. This isn’t that hard.
Dont know how to respond. Whenever I argue a general applicable point of policy or law, you drag my point into your MAGA obsession. Trump can be correct, or his critics full of shit, without MAGA being part of the discussion. This Epstein flap is one example
If you want to get an idea of what I’m talking about, read all the opinions in the immunity decision. The law is clear and I called it correctly from the beginning. Yet 7 jurists and many media pundits disagreed with me, and misrepresented the result to boot. Those who disagreed focused on Trump instead of the law. I think you are like the 7.
Latest Post: How do you deal with Islam? Our newest member: Ben Wiggins Recent Posts Unread Posts
