Why is Mitch McConnell refusing to subpoena any documents and witnesses?

Barr IS Trump's personal attorney.

Though Barr denies knowing anything about Ukraine. He lies, of course. From Lev Parnas we now know he was up to his neck.

https://politicalwire.com/2019/11/28/barr-never-asked-ukraine-for-investigation/

 

First you use Les Pamas as proof. And then you use the Political Wire. Weren't you the one thought I should not use the WSJ as a source at the same time you were using Vanity Fair? You are a joke.

 

What the f... hell are you talking about? Why would I care if you use the WSJ as a source?

Don't bother... whatever it is is nonsense!

 

From your thread on lock her up. I quoted the US Code on protection of classified and used the WSJ to show how she broke that law.

 

Oh! Because you quoted the WSJ when I asked you to quote the U.S. Code? I remember now. That must have been embarrassing for you.

So now you show you don't know the difference between the U.S. Code and.... what was it I sent a linked to? I don't even know....

 

I had already linked and quoted the US code. You asked how it applied. I used the WSJ to show how she violated the code.

Here is the whole exchange:

 

I asked you to quote where in the Criminal Code this was typified as a crime. And you quoted the WSJ.

 

I showed you the code where it talked about requiring all classified material must be protected commensurate with the classification level. I showed the where she did not provide that protection commensurate with the classification level using the WSJ. Unless you do not believe one or the other, that completes the circle.

 

Enlighten me. Or let me enlighten you. Executive privilege is inherent in the separation of the three branches of government. There are only three things that the Constitution authorizes in way of congressional oversight of the president:

1. Don't fund the government or those things with which the Congress disagrees
2. Impeach/Convict
3. Pass a law, within the Constitution, and override a presidential veto.

The whole concept of congressional oversight is unconstitutional and any laws to the contrary are unconstitutional. To back that up, the Founders were quite explicit in their contemporaneous discussions that they didn't want the Executive to be subject to the whims of congressional politics. If the Executive chooses to share information with Congress so they are more willing to fund his goals, that's his choice. If he chooses not to then Congress will have to find the information they want in other ways.

 

Schiff wants to call the two MAGA thugs who attacked Jussie Smollett in Chicago

 

Barr is a busy guy.

https://www.commonsenseevaluation.c...-kerry-chris-heinz-and-devon-archer-timeline/

They'll be testifying but not in the Senate, it's a disgusting tail of corruption.

 

Ok. I'd have to start by teaching you the most fundamental principles of law. Starting with the obvious fact that not everything that is forbidden is a crime (otherwise, you'd be a criminal if you park your SUV in a spot designated for compact cars), and then working up to how actions are classified as crimes and ... much more. Not interested in doing that. So... I'm done.

 

Which if believed puts the lie to Trump's claim of a pending call from the attorney general. There has never been investigations into the Bidens behavior by the US where the laws would have been broken.

 

You have really reached the silly stage. First, you doubt there is a law about protecting classified information. And then you doubt that violating the law is a crime.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

1. 
   
   
2. Title 18. CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
   
3. Part I. CRIMES
   
4. Chapter 37. ESPIONAGE AND CENSORSHIP
   
5. Section 798. Disclosure of classified information
6. 18 U.S. Code § 798.Disclosure of classified information
   (a)Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

 

Oh my. Honestly? It's gotten that bad?

 

It can be inherent in.... The Bible.... for all I care. But that's irrelevant if you don't know what it is. And you have not shown that you do on any of your posts.

 

Thank you. Emphasis added.

 

Are you now claiming she did not know she had a server in her closet?

 

Why is Mitch McConnell refusing to subpoena any documents and witnesses?

Because the facts frighten Repubs............as well they should.

 

Pray tell us what it is.

 

Pretty common in your recent posts in this thread... When you can't argue the facts, attack the messenger. You lose.

 

Quote the statute of the U.S. Code that classifies having a server in your closet a crime.

Actually... Never mind. You're just playing around. It's not a crime. And with the proper security (which it obviously had), it does not place the information in peril of being leaked.

All this and everything else you plan to say was investigated and, as I said, she was exonerated. So... don't bother. Just assume "Exonerated" is my answer in response to any posts on this matter you want to comment on

 

The first US Code I provided said that the classified information must be provided the protection commensurate with the classification of the documents. The server was not certified for classified information and it was not in a secure location.

 

Nah.... .this is the opportunity to get you away from your right wingnut media that doesn't inform you of anything and instead get you to look at real news, where all these things are explained again and again, so there is no doubt that the audience is informed, at a minimum, of the basic concepts.