"I say, RELEASE ALL THE FILES, no redactions for anyone."

And the folks you vote for are laughing at your suggestion, while knowing they can still count on your vote.

"The same can be said for you Danforth."

No it can't. I've been for the release since forever.

You were for it when you thought it would hurt Democrats, then turned against it when it became clear Trump was an integral part of seemingly every page.

"Your attempts to demonize the Republican side only is laughable."

You'd be hard-pressed to find anything good I say about Democrats. It's just the Republicans are so ---------- worse.

"Give the Clinton's the Navarro/Bannon treatment."

So, pardon them if they get convicted?!?

Seriously, Republicans have been trying for decades to convict HRC on anything and everything they could find. They're either the worst investigators, worst prosecutors in history...

...or they're involved in LAWFARE.

" Navarro and Bannon were prosecuted for the exact same thing."

Huh? What, specifically?

"Are you saying the Clintons deserve an exemption?"

Depends. Were Navarro and Bannon prosecuted within the statute of limitations?

" Navarro and Bannon "

Two MASSIVE pieces of scum.

No surprise you're carrying their fetid water.

"What, specifically?"

Oh. I see: doing what one of the current committee chairs has been doing for years.

Got Hypocrisy?

" Saying that the Clintons should be held to the same standard is carrying water for a scumbag?"

No, I'm saying choosing BANNON and NAVARRO as folks to defend is right on point for you.

You know, the kind of people if I accuse you of "enabling", you'd accuse me of vote shaming.

"Are you saying the Clintons deserve an exemption?"

Are you saying the Clintons deserve less delay than one of the co-chairs of the committee?

Gym Jordan was subpoened in December '21. By my count, that means the Clintons have until January 2031...

...that is, if Jordan honors HIS OWN COMMITTEE's subpoena tomorrow.

Hey, how about this law: "No member of Congress shall issue any subpoena from any committee which they are currently ignoring a subpoena."

Who's with me?

"Why do you continually ignore that Bannon and Navarro were prosecuted and given prison time for doing exactly what the Clintons just did?"

Because that's not all either Bannon or Navarro did.

Serious question: just how bad does that fetid water smell?

"The Clintons are ignoring a subpoena. They deserve the exact same treatment Bannon and Navarro received."

Why don't they deserve the same treatment Gym Jordan got?

"Why don't they deserve the same treatment Navarro and Bannon got?"

Bannon and Navarro had both admitted lawbreaking. They were both avoiding a hearing.

Neither Clinton has been charged with lawbreaking. Nor are they public servants.

You see no differences?!?

"Why don't they deserve the same treatment..."

Until and unless Trump is on the docket, it's a farce.

I wonder about your response the day an FBI agent testifies as to how many Trump entries he was told to scrub.

"The Supreme Court has long supported Congress' authority to obtain information needed to carry out its constitutional duties. But weak enforcement tools have made getting that information difficult, especially from the executive branch."

Until Gym Jordan honors his own committee's subpoena, kindly GFY.

It really is a joke, as long as Gym ignores the very subpoenas he issues. Your entire argument...the Republicans' entire argument...is laughable.

"Russia, Russia, Russia"

Another admission you're a partisan hack.

When Marco Rubio admits it, and then you deny it, you prove you're a water carrier. Usually sloshed.

"Is it breaking the law to call into question and challenge the outcome of an election?"

You're equating the garden variety challenges with folks who knew they lost, and didn't care.

BANNON knew they lost, and he championed the J6 insurrection.

Does his water smell the worst??? That's my guess.

" Is it breaking the law to call into question and challenge the outcome of an election?"

No. But it's breaking the law to certify you're the duly elected electors, when you're not. And it's breaking the law if Mike Pence illegally throws out the valid results of the election, or if you try to illegally influence him to overthrow the election. And it's breaking the law if the GA SoS "finds" 11,781 votes which didn't exist. It's also against the law to TELL the GA SoS to find 11,781 votes which don't exist.

NONE of which you've condemned, by the way.

"You absolutely will not address the obvious comparison between Navarro/Bannon and the Clinton's"

That's because you want to pretend both are the same. Only one pair was trying to avoid a legal hearing. The other is avoiding a purposeful circus.

Here's a good question to hold you to:

Do you insist Trump testify as well, and will you defend Clinton's refusal if Trump refuses???

"I like how you think you are uniquely qualified to determine what is a legal hearing and e what is a circus."

When Clinton is called, but Trump is ignored, that's a circus.

When the President tells his AG to prosecute Democrats, THAT's a circus.

And when the DOJ refuses to investigate a cop with a gun in one hand and his cellphone in the other, and instead wants to investigate the widow...THAT'S A CIRCUS.

And you're the clown with the big red nose, trying to distract while the elephant in the center ring takes a gigantic krappp.