General Discussion

brush

(54,665 posts)

67. It's just a discussion board. Not that big a deal.

Reply to bigtree (Reply #65)

Sat Mar 23, 2024, 01:05 AM

Mar 2024

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

122 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Let's be clear. Tribe and Weissman are full of shit about the Trump investigations [View all] bigtree Mar 2024 OP

Unfortunately, this OP starts off with a false premise when it says... Think. Again. Mar 2024 #1

lol bigtree Mar 2024 #4

Perhaps I missed some nuance, but it is exactly what you said... Think. Again. Mar 2024 #8

not arguing your parsing bigtree Mar 2024 #9

Don't think that was the intention. cachukis Mar 2024 #6

This is one valid point - eom FHRRK Mar 2024 #25

Good call. Goodheart Mar 2024 #30

You are the one spreading falsehoods Fiendish Thingy Mar 2024 #42

Say wut?... Think. Again. Mar 2024 #72

The OP never mentioned anything about "The Democratic Party's DOJ" Fiendish Thingy Mar 2024 #94

to be fair to the poster bigtree Mar 2024 #95

If we cannot exist within a shared reality, how can we hope to defeat fascism? Fiendish Thingy Mar 2024 #96

Wow, you're really bad at this. Think. Again. Mar 2024 #97

Substance free reply. Fiendish Thingy Mar 2024 #99

regardless of when the DOJ pursued Trump, agingdem Mar 2024 #2

I'd like to believe this Nasruddin Mar 2024 #40

Trump knows he going to lose the election.. agingdem Mar 2024 #66

YES, I agree MorbidButterflyTat Mar 2024 #116

Celebrity lawyers are paid to fill a role and support an agenda. TwilightZone Mar 2024 #3

Pretty awesome accounting. cachukis Mar 2024 #5

There's not politicizing the DoJ, and then there's being so afraid of the appearance of being political... Silent3 Mar 2024 #7

I think the NYT article's mind reading is as bogus as a carnival medium bigtree Mar 2024 #10

"Salacious editorializing" is not a minor thing Silent3 Mar 2024 #14

funny that the exoneration isn't your talking point bigtree Mar 2024 #19

Now there's an intellectually dishonest debate tactic! Silent3 Mar 2024 #26

I'll make it simple bigtree Mar 2024 #32

I'm talking about my opinion of Garland and the DoJ Silent3 Mar 2024 #70

you've posted nothing to back that up bigtree Mar 2024 #75

No, my opinion is only contradicted by your opinion Silent3 Mar 2024 #76

I actually posted facts that you didn't address at all bigtree Mar 2024 #81

I've seen many lists before of all the things the DoJ has supposedly done... Silent3 Mar 2024 #119

"Taking the win and moving on"? Takket Mar 2024 #24

they spent ONE day on that and moved on. bigtree Mar 2024 #34

Milquetoast Merrick needs to go. Sky Jewels Mar 2024 #80

I can think of some other folks who are also pining for him to leave bigtree Mar 2024 #82

Yep MorbidButterflyTat Mar 2024 #118

Let's be clear, Hur testified he "did not exonerate" the president. sop Mar 2024 #79

the fuck bigtree Mar 2024 #83

You keep on using the term "exoneration," yet Hur specifically testified he did not exonerate Biden. sop Mar 2024 #88

you're using Hur's language to make that point bigtree Mar 2024 #89

Let's cut through all the pointless semantics: sop Mar 2024 #90

but we're not the media bigtree Mar 2024 #91

Thank you. dchill Mar 2024 #11

We have all been part of the show. cachukis Mar 2024 #12

Man, I have reread this twice. cachukis Mar 2024 #16

Posting on the earlier article I said the cheer leaders would be staying up republianmushroom Mar 2024 #13

I stopped responding to edhopper Mar 2024 #17

Thankfully their numbers are now small. Celerity Mar 2024 #22

But vocal edhopper Mar 2024 #29

Well, that is unfortunately usually a given here. Celerity Mar 2024 #33

you have a lot of nerve talking about me like that bigtree Mar 2024 #23

I have the nauseating feeling that we are all... dchill Mar 2024 #15

I don't know what this post is trying to prove... appmanga Mar 2024 #18

I rest my case. cachukis Mar 2024 #20

so you read nothing bigtree Mar 2024 #21

You clearly did not read the NYT article Fiendish Thingy Mar 2024 #45

Fucking "Rule of Law" thing pisses me off OAITW r.2.0 Mar 2024 #27

Can you fit any more strawmen into one post? Goodheart Mar 2024 #28

Thank you. ancianita Mar 2024 #31

I can't be the only one that thinks the slower the better. rubbersole Mar 2024 #35

Still at it writing tomes defending Garland, huh? brush Mar 2024 #36

As I've said... the proof is in the pudding, and here's the pudding Goodheart Mar 2024 #37

You are exactly right. Garland has been a poor AG. The OP poster keeps posting the same crap... brush Mar 2024 #39

Family member? Goodheart Mar 2024 #41

Really? brush Mar 2024 #43

I have no idea. Wouldn't surprise me because of the over-the-top defensiveness. Goodheart Mar 2024 #44

Your timeline is incomplete Fiendish Thingy Mar 2024 #50

If you think his job was to win the election, you're making the same mistake Trump made about his DOJ bigtree Mar 2024 #46

Win the election? No. His job was to prosecute the orange toad and his cabal who lead... brush Mar 2024 #49

he is prosecuting him bigtree Mar 2024 #55

Keep on your crusade. He's still been a poor AG. brush Mar 2024 #56

you listen here bigtree Mar 2024 #59

Ok, ok, ok. I give up. Have at it. brush Mar 2024 #61

I don't need your permission bigtree Mar 2024 #63

Ok. Ok. You're taking this too seriously. brush Mar 2024 #64

there's always someone jumping on my threads to tell me all about myself bigtree Mar 2024 #65

It's just a discussion board. Not that big a deal. brush Mar 2024 #67

baiting and bullying on these pages is a big deal bigtree Mar 2024 #68

AGAIN with the strawmen? Goodheart Mar 2024 #51

As bad as the NYT article is, it still destroys nearly all of the myths about Garland Fiendish Thingy Mar 2024 #38

Yet we're 3 years+ since J6 and trump has yet to be tried. brush Mar 2024 #47

Your impatience does not mean a ball was dropped Fiendish Thingy Mar 2024 #53

3 year plus is not impatience. Blind to reality is unfortunate though. He's been a poor AG. brush Mar 2024 #54

Garland has not been working on the Trump prosecution for 3 years bigtree Mar 2024 #57

No more pls. Keep tilting at windmills. brush Mar 2024 #58

jesus bigtree Mar 2024 #62

there's that bigtree Mar 2024 #48

+1. and thanks. you are not the only person I have read today stopdiggin Mar 2024 #60

Perfect example of a straw man: "Garland did nothing to investigate Trump until Smith was appointed" Silent3 Mar 2024 #71

talk about a straw man bigtree Mar 2024 #86

I don't think you understand what a "straw man" argument is Silent3 Mar 2024 #107

unless 'core questions' come with more than angst over time passed bigtree Mar 2024 #111

"and with actual receipts to back all of that up" Silent3 Mar 2024 #117

you're making a simple argument bigtree Mar 2024 #120

the thread is packed full of responses to your fallacy bigtree Mar 2024 #121

That is/was a common complaint amongst Garland bashers Fiendish Thingy Mar 2024 #92

it was really galling to hear the committee members like Schiff to complain about delays bigtree Mar 2024 #93

Thank you. I need to read this again, twice. Joinfortmill Mar 2024 #52

Anonymous internet poster says renowned Constitutional scholar Lawrence Tribe is full of shit. All righty then. jalan48 Mar 2024 #69

this discussion board isn't a clearance house for Tribe and Weissmann bigtree Mar 2024 #77

I'm reminded of that famous Apollo 13 quote, "Success IS an OPTION" lostnfound Mar 2024 #73

If the lives of billions of people depended on getting to the moon in a hurry... Silent3 Mar 2024 #78

I 100% agree. And in the case of Apollo 13, rushing rocket science is exactly what they had to do lostnfound Mar 2024 #122

IOW NanaCat Mar 2024 #74

Let's be clear. Garland failed us. Sky Jewels Mar 2024 #84

I believe Tribe and Weissman have valid points. ms liberty Mar 2024 #85

since you've been here a while, you should know about hit and run posting bigtree Mar 2024 #87

bigtree, you must be getting lonely, being a diehard Garland supporter. Paladin Mar 2024 #98

His OP has 36 recs at last count. Moosepoop Mar 2024 #100

Actually, if you look at the number of recs divided by the number of views, the quotient is remarkably low. Earth-shine Mar 2024 #103

Recs divided by views means exactly what? Moosepoop Mar 2024 #105

I assume that "number of views" represents people on "both sides" of this argument. Earth-shine Mar 2024 #106

Of course the views are from "both sides." Moosepoop Mar 2024 #108

Frankly, that's a load of Moosepoop. People can do the math for themselves. Earth-shine Mar 2024 #110

Yes, they can. Moosepoop Mar 2024 #113

Exactly. The number of recs doesn't go up at all, does it? Earth-shine Mar 2024 #115

Duplicate post n/t Moosepoop Mar 2024 #114

Bingo! nt Quixote1818 Mar 2024 #112

most of us have come to grips with the fact that the AG hasn't been investigating or prosecuting Trump and Co. bigtree Mar 2024 #104

This is becoming sad. Scrivener7 Mar 2024 #101

have some tea and a cookie bigtree Mar 2024 #102

Yes, it really is. n/t demmiblue Mar 2024 #109