This_person
Well-Known Member
Be interesting to see the justification of that.Well, since it seems that the "request" was turned down, I guess their next step will will be an actual subpoena.
Be interesting to see the justification of that.Well, since it seems that the "request" was turned down, I guess their next step will will be an actual subpoena.
Yet they continue to deny telling us who we taxpayers had to spend millions of dollars for to keep them out of legal trouble for their sexual harassments.You know that they'll review it in closed session and still somehow the information will find its way to the NY Times or Wash Post. And I predict the information will be used to launch numerous hearings and those hearings will divulge the information "because the American people have a right to know...."
Be interesting to see the justification of that.
Yet they continue to deny telling us who we taxpayers had to spend millions of dollars for to keep them out of legal trouble for their sexual harassments.
It's one thing to request it per the code - the one that they agreed they'd never use for the purpose they are trying to use it for. It's something else entirely to subpoena it. There'd have to be a reason to do that.Well, for one, the US Code but I guess we'll see as time goes by.
Agree. Just pointing out that it's difficult to say you want transparency when you refuse to offer transparency.Totally agree but that is a separate issue.
It's one thing to request it per the code - the one that they agreed they'd never use for the purpose they are trying to use it for. It's something else entirely to subpoena it. There'd have to be a reason to do that.
Is there one?
Well, for one, the US Code but I guess we'll see as time goes by.
"...back to..." implies there was a time that stopped. I am unaware of that time.... And so we are back to having democrats using government agencies as a weapon to attack their political enemies.
No worries. Might have been having a slow day and missed it. Though, your posit does make one think. If only Option A and Option B are allowed choices, with Option C, Free Will, being the choice not to decide, is not allowed, perhaps you are correct? Do we really have Free Will?Oh well. Just trying to riff on the "we all have choices" by joking about Free Will. As in, do we? Do we really? Apparently, not a good riff on my part.
--- End of line (MCP)