Born N Bled Red Posted June 9, 2020 Share Posted June 9, 2020 6 hours ago, knapplc said: He's, apparently, a Notre Dame fan who only comes to HuskerBoard to talk politics and keep beating the conservative drum. He hasn't posted outside of P&R since like November of last year. Or a troll/bot from Russia that has infiltrated Huskerboard specifically to post in the P&R forum to put forth right wing talking points. Nah, couldn't be.... but, MAYBE??????? hmmmmmm Link to comment
Notre Dame Joe Posted June 9, 2020 Share Posted June 9, 2020 4 hours ago, Fru said: Wait, you mean to tell me that a competent Federal response at the beginning stages of the pandemic could have prevented the catastrophic death toll, job loss, and disruption to daily life? Well keeping with the this week in mob logic, failures by individual public health officials mean we should defund the CDC. Although we'd likely have to abolish the state government dunderheads that gave the order. 1 1 Link to comment
Born N Bled Red Posted June 9, 2020 Share Posted June 9, 2020 5 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said: Well keeping with the this week in mob logic, failures by individual public health officials mean we should defund the CDC. Although we'd likely have to abolish the state government dunderheads that gave the order. You aren't even trying any more are you? Cuts at the CDC and other areas that deal in infectious diseases are one of the huge reasons why we are in the mess. The CDC has still undergone an “erosion of budget and staff under Trump” but without Congress’s defiance “thousands more Americans would likely die over the next few months because of even more reduced capacity at the CDC”, according to the report, compiled by the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative (EDGI). https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/24/trump-cuts-undermine-coronavirus-containment-cdc-watchdog-report 2 Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted June 10, 2020 Share Posted June 10, 2020 Pretty stunning slap in the face of Barr's DOJ. Pretty obvious this was the case to a lot of us, but it's nice to see an extremely respected jurist agree. 1 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted June 10, 2020 Share Posted June 10, 2020 That would be the judicial equivalent of: Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted June 10, 2020 Share Posted June 10, 2020 Great minds think alike I see. The text itself is pretty damning. 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted June 10, 2020 Share Posted June 10, 2020 7 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said: Great minds think alike I see. The text itself is pretty damning. Gleeson must be one of those "activist judges" the Republicans hate so much. Link to comment
Decoy73 Posted June 10, 2020 Share Posted June 10, 2020 How dare Judge Gleeson get in the way of the Trump Administration’s apparent right to abuse power at will. 1 1 Link to comment
Notre Dame Joe Posted June 10, 2020 Share Posted June 10, 2020 3 hours ago, knapplc said: Gleeson must be one of those "activist judges" the Republicans hate so much. The Gleeson that was appointed by Judge Sullivan to review the decision? Or in other words, Judge Sullivan chose someone who agreed with him. Isn't that what you accuse of every single active DOJ attorney in the Trump administration? The difference is that the Executive is a political branch. JUDGE Sullivan is not supposed to be on Team Prosecute Flynn. 1 1 1 Link to comment
RedDenver Posted June 10, 2020 Share Posted June 10, 2020 40 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said: Or in other words, Judge Sullivan chose someone who agreed with him. Holy unsupported assumption, Batman! 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted June 10, 2020 Share Posted June 10, 2020 49 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said: The Gleeson that was appointed by Judge Sullivan to review the decision? Or in other words, Judge Sullivan chose someone who agreed with him. Isn't that what you accuse of every single active DOJ attorney in the Trump administration? The difference is that the Executive is a political branch. JUDGE Sullivan is not supposed to be on Team Prosecute Flynn. So, in other words, you would have had this opinion with whomever officially reviews the case and comes up with this conclusion. 2 Link to comment
Notre Dame Joe Posted June 11, 2020 Share Posted June 11, 2020 23 hours ago, RedDenver said: Holy unsupported assumption, Batman! 23 hours ago, BigRedBuster said: So, in other words, you would have had this opinion with whomever officially reviews the case and comes up with this conclusion. You've treated every DOJ attorney in the last 3 years as a proxy for President Trump. Even Mueller's team could not convince a jury to hear their case without vomiting at the outrageous conduct of the FBI. And that was before these last two weeks where the nation swooned against law enforcement in general. 1 3 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted June 11, 2020 Share Posted June 11, 2020 8 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said: You've treated every DOJ attorney in the last 3 years as a proxy for President Trump. Even Mueller's team could not convince a jury to hear their case without vomiting at the outrageous conduct of the FBI. And that was before these last two weeks where the nation swooned against law enforcement in general. I'm absolutely in awww. It would be amazing to see where you get your information and the media you consume each day. 1 Link to comment
RedDenver Posted June 11, 2020 Share Posted June 11, 2020 14 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: I'm absolutely in awww. It would be amazing to see where you get your information and the media you consume each day. It rhymes with Donservative Peehouse 1 3 Link to comment
Recommended Posts