@George-K said in Trump has no credibility with his own Dept. of Justice:

@George-K said in Trump has no credibility with his own Dept. of Justice:

At the most basic level The President has authority to declassify anything and everything he wants.

That said, whether that actually happens in this case is another question, as the article says. DOJ (which, last time I looked is in the Executive Branch) can say, "We shouldn't." But, it can't say, "We won't." He hasn't given the order, so they are assuming they can stop declassification.

ETA: What are the odds that TRump doesn't know what's in those documents? I'd guess slim.

I think you are right. LOL

There may be nothing in there.

But this way, he can say to the US public that he is trying to show the corruption. His supporters are happy with his effort. Nothing will happen until after the election and then it won't be important, because at that point, he has either won or lost another term.

I can see that doing well in other countries as well.

There is no "purple tide"...

Hahahahaaa

He sent me some of his holiday snaps...here's one of the few I can share on a family site

alt text

@Mik said in Meanwhile, in Cleveland...:

Yeah I keep hearing it touted as the miracle drug. I am reminded of all the snake oil elixirs of days past.

Mrs. George went to see her internist the other day, and I accompanied her. We got to talking about that and he said that in his practice, he has never seen a more varied reaction to a therapy. Some people say it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, others just go "meh."

Any other drug would be more rigorously tested to prove effectiveness. But no...

What if it was as simple as America was not ready for a female president?

Does that mean Dems are the feces on the other side?

As soon as he figures out he's not a Senator. Maybe.

Great, now you can say you will move to another parallel universe if your preferred candidate loses the election, and still remain an American, just that of an America in another parallel universe.

I would have given $100, if Barrett had answered, "I'm sorry Senator, but shouldn't that question be directed to Senator Harris?" .

Some funny things there.

No one will miss her.

@George-K said in Should I reply?:

@Catseye3 said in Should I reply?:

Ooo, you dawg.

Happily married for 43+ years...I'm no dawg, even though some wimmenz find me irresistible.

Dude, I've heard about these porn stars with a Santa Clause fetish...Ain't no tellin' what chimneys you could slide down.

Or what you would find when you hit bottom...😄

@xenon said in Remember?:

@Jolly said in Remember?:

@xenon said in Remember?:

@Jolly said in Remember?:

And at that point, I think Lowry started tanking National Review down a rabbit hole.

There is a reason I say that...Lowry and crew have established a defense fund for Barrett today, to fight lies and innuendo in the media. OTOH, Lowry is most definitely a Never-Trumper.

The irony is with no Trump, there is no Barrett...

Without a GOP president there is no Barrett. It didn’t have to be Trump.

And you're so full of shit your eyes are brown.

Bush nor Mittens would have ever nominated Barrett.

So you think she's going to be a conservative policy activist judge or an originalist?

If she's an originalist - what's so radically novel about her?

But you're right , my eyes are brown.

I think she will be very similar to Scalia. That is anathema to the Dems. So much so, they are actually talking about packing the court.

Good

I agree.

Wow