Twoothy has nothing but personal attacks. Nothing. It's tedious.

#6. It's an op ed. Yes. The criticisms of Garland are specific and laid out.

" you are stupid enough to believe accidentally having classified documents"

Hur said they were willfully taken and shared with Biden's ghost writer, who didn't have clearance.

" Then it claims Garland is corrupt for using Attorney-Client Privilege to hold onto the audio of a Biden interview. IRONIC since you just claimed Garland was corrupt for ignoring DOJ policies and now you want him ignore DOJ Attorney-Client Privilege policies that were used in previous administrations (can anyone say Trump?)"

You just make crap up as you go along. Nothing you just said is true or accurate.

" Bill Clinton lies about some consensual fun with an intern? IMPEACHMENT"

It. Was. Perjury.

"Donald Trump rapes a woman AND lies under oath about it? PASS"

Not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In a case that went back decades, in a civil lawsuit where certain facts, notably dates werent even established.

" Biden existed? IMPEACHMENT AND LOCK HIM UP"

Articles of imoeachment haven't even been brought. But you be you.

" That is not the gist of the OpEd your current alias cited"

It's what Hur said.

#34. Wow. So Lauren frickng Boebert introduced an article of impeachment? Has it been taken u by the GOP House?

No? Do try harder.

" How so?"

Because it was a civ8o trial, not a criminal trial. In a civil trial the burden of proof is much lower - beyond the preponderance of doubt.

"I think Empty G has introduced at least five.

#38 | POSTED BY REDIAL"

Wouldn't surprise me. She may well be a bigger idiot than Boebert.

"@#35 ... It's what Hur said. ...

... and ... ???

Still waiting for any manner of substantiation.

Got links?

#40 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER"

Links to what? Are you actually unaware that when Hur investigated Biden's handling of classified documents that he state Biden removed them willfully but he declined to recommend prosecution because (paraphrasing now) Biden would be viewed as too old and infirm by a jury to be tried for this?

You follow politics WAY too closely to be ignorant about this, especially since it is so recent and that it was widely reported.

Clownshack,

What I said is accurate. It was a civil trial, not a criminal trial. It's also under appeal.

"Of course you are. It's what you do. Misleading -------- is your schtick.

#43 | POSTED BY REDIAL"

Good God. You are such a fricking ankle-biter.

"When then-special counsel Robert Hur released his February report on President Biden's handling of classified material, Hur assessed that a jury wouldn't be likely to convict Mr. Biden because he'd be seen as a "well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory."

I'm not linking to something so recent, that was so reported and is commonly known.

Not playing that game. If it's something more obscure? Sure, I'll provide a link. But this? Um, no. You're trying to get me to needlessly jump through hoops for personal entertainment.

"Please explain how that decision in the civil case was wrong."

I didn't say it was wrong. I'm not at all convinced it was wrong. Apologies for not being clear about that.

I'm pointing out the difference between a civil and criminal trial, Clowncrap. That's it.

Clowncrap,

Quit being a dishonest troll and quit buggering farm animals.

You will live a far more productive life.

" WTF is wrong with you people????

#58 | POSTED BY ANGRYDAD AT 2024-06-18 04:42 PM | FLAG: "

Most of the other threads are about Trump. The stuff I post contradicts left wing narratives. And most on this site seem to prefer to debate (although "debate" is often nothing more than personal attacks) than to just sit in an echo chamber.