Toggle sidebar

LOL.....Jerry Nadler......POS....

bornaneer

bornaneer

All-Conference
Jan 23, 2014
30,947
1,662
113
In 1998, Rep. Jerry Nadler strongly opposed the release of the Starr Report on Bill Clinton. No information whatsoever would or could be legally released. After Ken Starr, the independent counsel who investigated Clinton, delivered his report in September 1998, Nadler immediately rejected calls from Republicans to make the entire thing public.
In 1998 he vociferously opposed the release of the full Starr Report, saying that “as a matter of decency and protecting people’s privacy rights, people who may be totally innocent third parties, what must not be released at all.”
“It’s grand-jury material. It represents statements which may or may not be true by various witnesses — salacious material, all kinds of material that it would be unfair to release,” Nadler said on the Charlie Rose show back in 1998.
Twenty-one years ago Nadler complained about Clinton not being allowed to get a sneak peak at the Starr Report before it was made public: “The President is asking for two days. The Republicans say no.”
 
W

WVUCOOPER

Redshirt
Dec 10, 2002
55,556
40
31
bornaneer said:
In 1998, Rep. Jerry Nadler strongly opposed the release of the Starr Report on Bill Clinton. No information whatsoever would or could be legally released. After Ken Starr, the independent counsel who investigated Clinton, delivered his report in September 1998, Nadler immediately rejected calls from Republicans to make the entire thing public.
In 1998 he vociferously opposed the release of the full Starr Report, saying that “as a matter of decency and protecting people’s privacy rights, people who may be totally innocent third parties, what must not be released at all.”
“It’s grand-jury material. It represents statements which may or may not be true by various witnesses — salacious material, all kinds of material that it would be unfair to release,” Nadler said on the Charlie Rose show back in 1998.
Twenty-one years ago Nadler complained about Clinton not being allowed to get a sneak peak at the Starr Report before it was made public: “The President is asking for two days. The Republicans say no.”
Click to expand...
And vice versa for Trumpers. What's your point?
 
T

TarHeelEer

Freshman
Dec 15, 2002
89,304
53
48
WVUCOOPER said:
And vice versa for Trumpers. What's your point?
Click to expand...

I don't care, release it all, except for classified, and depending on who in the grand jury pieces parts. Anyone with the last name of Trump should not be redacted.
 
W

WVUCOOPER

Redshirt
Dec 10, 2002
55,556
40
31
TarHeelEer said:
I don't care, release it all, except for classified, and depending on who in the grand jury pieces parts. Anyone with the last name of Trump should not be redacted.
Click to expand...
I have a feeling that opinion will be in the minority among Trumpers.
 
M

moe

Junior
May 29, 2001
32,863
283
83
bornaneer said:
In 1998, Rep. Jerry Nadler strongly opposed the release of the Starr Report on Bill Clinton. No information whatsoever would or could be legally released. After Ken Starr, the independent counsel who investigated Clinton, delivered his report in September 1998, Nadler immediately rejected calls from Republicans to make the entire thing public.
In 1998 he vociferously opposed the release of the full Starr Report, saying that “as a matter of decency and protecting people’s privacy rights, people who may be totally innocent third parties, what must not be released at all.”
“It’s grand-jury material. It represents statements which may or may not be true by various witnesses — salacious material, all kinds of material that it would be unfair to release,” Nadler said on the Charlie Rose show back in 1998.
Twenty-one years ago Nadler complained about Clinton not being allowed to get a sneak peak at the Starr Report before it was made public: “The President is asking for two days. The Republicans say no.”
Click to expand...
There have been numerous postings on here about Trump doing total 180s from before he was elected to now. I hope you enjoy those as well.
 
dave

dave

Senior
May 29, 2001
60,601
818
113
moe said:
There have been numerous postings on here about Trump doing total 180s from before he was elected to now. I hope you enjoy those as well.
Click to expand...
But but but Truuuuuuump.
 
Airport

Airport

All-American
Dec 12, 2001
86,295
6,999
113
bornaneer said:
In 1998, Rep. Jerry Nadler strongly opposed the release of the Starr Report on Bill Clinton. No information whatsoever would or could be legally released. After Ken Starr, the independent counsel who investigated Clinton, delivered his report in September 1998, Nadler immediately rejected calls from Republicans to make the entire thing public.
In 1998 he vociferously opposed the release of the full Starr Report, saying that “as a matter of decency and protecting people’s privacy rights, people who may be totally innocent third parties, what must not be released at all.”
“It’s grand-jury material. It represents statements which may or may not be true by various witnesses — salacious material, all kinds of material that it would be unfair to release,” Nadler said on the Charlie Rose show back in 1998.
Twenty-one years ago Nadler complained about Clinton not being allowed to get a sneak peak at the Starr Report before it was made public: “The President is asking for two days. The Republicans say no.”
Click to expand...
Nadler ate the Starr report and probably has his eyes on Mueller's. FF
 
DvlDog4WVU

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
47,230
3,298
113
WVUCOOPER said:
I have a feeling that opinion will be in the minority among Trumpers.
Click to expand...
Well, since you all have labeled anyone not in the Orange Man Bad crowd a Trumper, I doubt you’ll get that confirmation on this board. All of us have said release what the law will allow. We want light brought to the darkness. The Orange Man Bad crowd wants cherry picked talking points.
 
W

WVUCOOPER

Redshirt
Dec 10, 2002
55,556
40
31
DvlDog4WVU said:
Well, since you all have labeled anyone not in the Orange Man Bad crowd a Trumper, I doubt you’ll get that confirmation on this board. All of us have said release what the law will allow. We want light brought to the darkness. The Orange Man Bad crowd wants cherry picked talking points.
Click to expand...
No I don't. I want it all released, unredacted. I want the opposite of cherry picked points.

And LOL at pretending you're not a Trumper.
 
E

eerdoc

Redshirt
May 29, 2001
24,014
26
48
bornaneer said:
dah......but.....I don't have any issue with releasing whatever the law allows.
Click to expand...
Does not the LAW allow the AG to release only what HE decides to release--which may be ZERO/NOTHING?
As I understood the process, the special counsel writes the report and delivers it to the AG. It then becomes HIS property to distribute, redact, sit on, etc as HE SEES FIT.
Am I off base?
If so, then of what value is all the fuss and fretting we are hearing from the House 'leadership' (loosely applied description)? Also, did not the Republican led House Judiciary Committee use many of gthe same procedures in an attempt to obtain desired documents from FBI and Justice Department to no avail?
 
DvlDog4WVU

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
47,230
3,298
113
WVUCOOPER said:
No I don't. I want it all released, unredacted. I want the opposite of cherry picked points.

And LOL at pretending you're not a Trumper.
Click to expand...
I’d qualify a Trumper the same as an Obamanaught. There is plenty I disagree with him on.

You aren’t going to get a full unredacted report unless they’ve changed the laws.
 
C

countryroads89_rivals

Sophomore
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
bornaneer said:
In 1998, Rep. Jerry Nadler strongly opposed the release of the Starr Report on Bill Clinton. No information whatsoever would or could be legally released. After Ken Starr, the independent counsel who investigated Clinton, delivered his report in September 1998, Nadler immediately rejected calls from Republicans to make the entire thing public.
In 1998 he vociferously opposed the release of the full Starr Report, saying that “as a matter of decency and protecting people’s privacy rights, people who may be totally innocent third parties, what must not be released at all.”
“It’s grand-jury material. It represents statements which may or may not be true by various witnesses — salacious material, all kinds of material that it would be unfair to release,” Nadler said on the Charlie Rose show back in 1998.
Twenty-one years ago Nadler complained about Clinton not being allowed to get a sneak peak at the Starr Report before it was made public: “The President is asking for two days. The Republicans say no.”
Click to expand...

The entire report, 445 pages, with no redactions about a blow job was released.

Good call, bringing this up.

Dumbass!
 
E

eerdoc

Redshirt
May 29, 2001
24,014
26
48
DvlDog4WVU said:
I’d qualify a Trumper the same as an Obamanaught. There is plenty I disagree with him on.

You aren’t going to get a full unredacted report unless they’ve changed the laws.
Click to expand...
Do you know the answer to my other questions regarding the AG and the laws governing such reports?
 
W

WVUCOOPER

Redshirt
Dec 10, 2002
55,556
40
31
DvlDog4WVU said:
I’d qualify a Trumper the same as an Obamanaught. There is plenty I disagree with him on.

You aren’t going to get a full unredacted report unless they’ve changed the laws.
Click to expand...
Same for FISA, but we both want it...no? POTUS can make it legal for them to be unredacted.
 
K

Keyser76

Freshman
Apr 7, 2010
11,912
58
0
Why would they want to hide a report that totally exonerates him? hmmm? Prolly the same reason he is hiding his tax returns, who cares if the rubes are too un self aware to understand they would be foaming at the mouth if this was Obama. They know he is crooked and dirty and don't care.
 
7

79eer

Junior
Oct 4, 2008
8,544
394
83
In the end, I would guess the law doesn’t really give a rats#**, what the Lib Wing Nuts want / think should be released, or anyone else for that matter.
 
dave

dave

Senior
May 29, 2001
60,601
818
113
Keyser76 said:
Why would they want to hide a report that totally exonerates him? hmmm? Prolly the same reason he is hiding his tax returns, who cares if the rubes are too un self aware to understand they would be foaming at the mouth if this was Obama. They know he is crooked and dirty and don't care.
Click to expand...
Dear moron. Nobody is hiding anything.
 
bornaneer

bornaneer

All-Conference
Jan 23, 2014
30,947
1,662
113
eerdoc said:
Does not the LAW allow the AG to release only what HE decides to release--which may be ZERO/NOTHING?
As I understood the process, the special counsel writes the report and delivers it to the AG. It then becomes HIS property to distribute, redact, sit on, etc as HE SEES FIT.
Am I off base?
If so, then of what value is all the fuss and fretting we are hearing from the House 'leadership' (loosely applied description)? Also, did not the Republican led House Judiciary Committee use many of gthe same procedures in an attempt to obtain desired documents from FBI and Justice Department to no avail?
Click to expand...
Just an example of exposing more Democrat hypocrites that have zero respect for any laws when it comes to Republicans enforcing them. Those ******** would sell their mothers and sisters for a vote.
 
T

TarHeelEer

Freshman
Dec 15, 2002
89,304
53
48
It's funny on the grand jury stuff, though. I state no Trump name should be redacted, knowing full well that hardly anyone even remotely close to the Trump's went before the grand jury. Corsi, perhaps? is the closest. There are open cases on some of the content still, also, so that would have to be redacted still.
 
bornaneer

bornaneer

All-Conference
Jan 23, 2014
30,947
1,662
113
Keyser76 said:
Why would they want to hide a report that totally exonerates him? hmmm? Prolly the same reason he is hiding his tax returns, who cares if the rubes are too un self aware to understand they would be foaming at the mouth if this was Obama. They know he is crooked and dirty and don't care.
Click to expand...
He is hiding his tax returns? The IRS doesn't agree with you. It's not up to President Trump to release the SC report. You're the one foaming at the mouth anytime our elected President farts.
 
M

moe

Junior
May 29, 2001
32,863
283
83
bornaneer said:
He is hiding his tax returns? The IRS doesn't agree with you.
Click to expand...
Duh. He's hid them since before he got elected and is still hiding them. Only a Dem sponsored subpoena is going to get them made public or at least released to authorized congresspersons.
 
bornaneer

bornaneer

All-Conference
Jan 23, 2014
30,947
1,662
113
countryroads89 said:
The entire report, 445 pages, with no redactions about a blow job was released.

Good call, bringing this up.

Dumbass!
Click to expand...
As usual you missed the point.......The thread was about Toadboy Jerry Nadler flipping around like a trained seal.
 
dave

dave

Senior
May 29, 2001
60,601
818
113
TarHeelEer said:
The answer is no, he cannot override judicial.
Click to expand...
There is a reason a grand jury can introduce evidence to the jury without the defendent present. It is a secret court and if a prosecutor doesnt act on a grand jury proceeding it is sealed up tight.
 
bornaneer

bornaneer

All-Conference
Jan 23, 2014
30,947
1,662
113
moe said:
Duh. He's hid them since before he got elected and is still hiding them. Only a Dem sponsored subpoena is going to get them made public or at least released to authorized congresspersons.
Click to expand...
You got him now.
 
dave

dave

Senior
May 29, 2001
60,601
818
113
moe said:
Duh. He's hid them since before he got elected and is still hiding them. Only a Dem sponsored subpoena is going to get them made public or at least released to authorized congresspersons.
Click to expand...
I hate to break it to you but he submitted those to the IRS. They are not hidden. They are just nobody elses business.
 
dave

dave

Senior
May 29, 2001
60,601
818
113
moe said:
Indeed. I think it's quite likely that they see the light of day before he's back in the private sector in January 2021.
Click to expand...
It will be just another huge disappointment for team resist.
 
bornaneer

bornaneer

All-Conference
Jan 23, 2014
30,947
1,662
113
The ONLY ones that can legally speak about grand jury testimony are the people that testified. prosecutors and jurors cannot talk about anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom