(07-11-2018 12:10 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 12:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 09:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually I kind of side with Page on this.
They were setting her up with no opportunity to review any documents at all. In the slightest.
Kind of a turd move, imo.
Lawyer gave the absolute best advice in the situation. Advice that I would have given if it were me giving the advice in that situation.
Look, Page *should* be compelled to testify. But requiring testimony in 'ambush-style' setting is utterly chickenshit.

It's good advice to give any client in this situation. Including Donald Trump.

been waiting for you to chime in....was as expected....and you're both not wrong....
astronaut fluid guy isn't a dumbarse.....he might be the smartest poster on the board....
the point others (including myself) are making is it's time to put some hands on the chopping block.......
it's simply time to put 'em in front of the public eye after raising 'their right hand' to swear to tell the truth.....
people need to go to jail over all this bs......

Don't disagree with you there. But there's a right way to do it. Do it by the numbers. And don't be afraid to start with an underling. That's often how you get the biggest fish. That was what was wrong with both the IRS and the Benghazi investigations. They were in such a rush to pin it on Hillary that they didn't ask the questions that needed to be asked. If the IRS deal was Lois Lerner's rogue operation, then indict her ass. My guess is you do that, and we suddenly find a lot of missing documents. But that's just a guess, you know?

(07-11-2018 12:06 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 09:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 09:15 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 09:10 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 09:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually I kind of side with Page on this.

They were setting her up with no opportunity to review any documents at all. In the slightest.

Kind of a turd move, imo.

Lawyer gave the absolute best advice in the situation. Advice that I would have given if it were me giving the advice in that situation.

Look, Page *should* be compelled to testify. But requiring testimony in 'ambush-style' setting is utterly chickenshit.

Yeah, but to paraphrase the left, why's she afraid of the interview if she did nothing wrong?

I'm currently taking care of a 'open case' murdered woman's estate that I handled for the previous 8 yrs.......I was called in twice......I looked the detective straight in the eye and asked, "why would I want to give up 500/mo easy money......swab me."

no bs....

if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear......

however, they play a different game at that level.....

one misstep and you're toast.....

Stinkman -- love ya and respect ya. But on this we are just going to disagree.

I know (not 'know of', but 'know') two or three people that 'didnt do anything wrong' *but* got caught cross with the Feds for interviews. Sorry, Feeb or US Attorney, or Federal fing dogcatcher for that matter, asks questions, Im not saying anything nor is anyone I am advising saying anything until *everything* is out in the open.

The locals dont have the laws to charge someone in that manner that the Feds do, but again I know a handful of people that, while not having done anything, got caught crossways for answers that the investigators didnt really want to hear.

Better to dig oneself out of a 'no answer' than doing the 'you didnt hear me correctly' version of that method.

Just saying, you and I will probably just have to agree to disagree on this point -- (salute)

I'd say this is spot on.

BUT, counter to what we get when it's coming from the other side. We have a disgraced fmr atty gen who wouldn't cooperate, FFS

The entire Fed system is f%^&'ed to the rotten, bloated core, or corpse.

Beyond the time to turn the page. disgusting.

As I responded just previously, without a doubt the **** runs the other way. Sessions got singed by it, Flynn got charbroiled by it.

But, ambush for ambush is not a justification.

I side with Sessions on his getting singed.
I side with Flynn in his getting spitted and roasted.
And, I side with Page for not allowing herself to be ambushed.

And again, do I think she should testify? Unabashedly yes. Without the opportunity to review documents? NFW.

And shame on the Feeb in this instance for trying to continue to effectuate the same chickenshit 'testify trap' that has become somewhat de rigeuer in this system.

(07-10-2018 11:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 11:23 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 11:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So you get uppity when you pose a 'facetious question' (i.e. a real question in which I have to subjectively know your answer) and I answer. Awesome job there sparky. Real clever. Then you go off on a snark asshat hunt with it.

Good follow up technique to continue to influence people. Keep it up. Or patent it. Make riches from that system.

I apologize. I didn't realize you were a dick as well.

Awww.... poor sparky sure can throw the facetious rock but sure gets snarly when it gets tossed back his way.... bummer.

Being called a 'dick' from the piehole that launched the 'obtuse' comment is really fing rich. Seriously. Think about it a bit. It just might hit you how rich it is....

Just one mans opinion(?)

Pretty sure ya'll firing well past each other. OR, into the fog of fire and Stonewall's gonna be cut down again.

Take a breath. Reload. Re-aim. Re target.



Could be wrong, been a long day.

(07-11-2018 12:17 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 11:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 11:23 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 11:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So you get uppity when you pose a 'facetious question' (i.e. a real question in which I have to subjectively know your answer) and I answer. Awesome job there sparky. Real clever. Then you go off on a snark asshat hunt with it.

Good follow up technique to continue to influence people. Keep it up. Or patent it. Make riches from that system.

I apologize. I didn't realize you were a dick as well.

Awww.... poor sparky sure can throw the facetious rock but sure gets snarly when it gets tossed back his way.... bummer.

Being called a 'dick' from the piehole that launched the 'obtuse' comment is really fing rich. Seriously. Think about it a bit. It just might hit you how rich it is....

Just one mans opinion(?)

Pretty sure ya'll firing well past each other. OR, into the fog of fire and Stonewall's gonna be cut down again.

Take a breath. Reload. Re-aim. Re target.



Could be wrong, been a long day.

Probably are firing past each other. But, at least I didnt launch the first ad-hom there though. I am becoming a better person....

One does have to ask though, how can a subpoena at this point be considered an ambush? Really.

Did a subpoena take her completely by surprise? Does she have no idea what the questions are going to center upon, and why?

Since the day the story broke of her text messages with Stork, she knew the day would come when she'd have to face the music.

And here's a novel concept. Sit down before the committee after taking the oath and then tell the truth.

(07-11-2018 11:12 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  One does have to ask though, how can a subpoena at this point be considered an ambush? Really.

Did a subpoena take her completely by surprise? Does she have no idea what the questions are going to center upon, and why?

Since the day the story broke of her text messages with Stork, she knew the day would come when she'd have to face the music.

Attorneys gonna attorney. They will drain her bank account and then she will do the same damn thing as if she testified today.

Somehow, this doesn't bother me in this case.

And what does it mean to ignore aCongressional subpoena? She’s already quit her government bureaucrat job, so can’t be fired. They can’t jail anyone.

Hold her in contempt? Sure she already knows most people hold her in contempt as it is.

Are there any “teeth” (haha) out there that Congress can use?

(07-11-2018 11:12 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  One does have to ask though, how can a subpoena at this point be considered an ambush? Really.

Did a subpoena take her completely by surprise? Does she have no idea what the questions are going to center upon, and why?

Since the day the story broke of her text messages with Stork, she knew the day would come when she'd have to face the music.

And here's a novel concept. Sit down before the committee after taking the oath and then tell the truth.

Or actually allow her to access the materials so she can testify fully. What a concept.

The issue *isnt* one of whether she should testify or not. The issue is the manner in which it is played out.

Or one can take the position that the far edge of 'testify/ambush' is the proper normal. I know which I would rather see employed.

(07-11-2018 11:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 11:12 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  One does have to ask though, how can a subpoena at this point be considered an ambush? Really.

Did a subpoena take her completely by surprise? Does she have no idea what the questions are going to center upon, and why?

Since the day the story broke of her text messages with Stork, she knew the day would come when she'd have to face the music.

And here's a novel concept. Sit down before the committee after taking the oath and then tell the truth.

Or actually allow her to access the materials so she can testify fully. What a concept.

The issue *isnt* one of whether she should testify or not. The issue is the manner in which it is played out.

Or one can take the position that the far edge of 'testify/ambush' is the proper normal. I know which I would rather see employed.

Give her lawyers time to coach her how to obfuscate the truth. Sound strategy but let's don't be disingenuous and say that she is somehow being ambushed.

(07-11-2018 11:34 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 11:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 11:12 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  One does have to ask though, how can a subpoena at this point be considered an ambush? Really.

Did a subpoena take her completely by surprise? Does she have no idea what the questions are going to center upon, and why?

Since the day the story broke of her text messages with Stork, she knew the day would come when she'd have to face the music.

And here's a novel concept. Sit down before the committee after taking the oath and then tell the truth.

Or actually allow her to access the materials so she can testify fully. What a concept.

The issue *isnt* one of whether she should testify or not. The issue is the manner in which it is played out.

Or one can take the position that the far edge of 'testify/ambush' is the proper normal. I know which I would rather see employed.

Give her lawyers time to coach her how to obfuscate the truth. Sound strategy but let's don't be disingenuous and say that she is somehow being ambushed.

Not allowing her access to materials to prepare, which is what has happened here, *is* ambush. Kind of hard to argue that it is not.

Think of it this way: You get called in to an IRS audit, scheduled for tomorrow. If you misrepresent (either intentionally or accidentally) it is a criminal charge. They tell you that you cannot bring in any papers to the audit, and that the audit must take place prior to you reviewing anything.

Ambush or not?

Fair or not?

Simple setup, should be a simple answer. It is.
Layer on the political background and issue and somehow that simple answer gets transformed.

Let me pose two questions to some of you:

First question: how is being called to testify without adequate ability to review germane documents approach anything that could be colorably called a fair opportunity to prepare? That is what you are seemingly advocating here; and that is a ***** blade that cuts every direction, mind you.

Second question: why the apparent resistance to the hearing being colorably a fair hearing?

Lets have the hearing, lets have the testimony. But good lord, lets at least approach it in a manner that can be called a fair opportunity to prepare without having to laugh out loud at that comment being profferred.

(07-11-2018 11:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 11:34 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 11:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 11:12 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  One does have to ask though, how can a subpoena at this point be considered an ambush? Really.

Did a subpoena take her completely by surprise? Does she have no idea what the questions are going to center upon, and why?

Since the day the story broke of her text messages with Stork, she knew the day would come when she'd have to face the music.

And here's a novel concept. Sit down before the committee after taking the oath and then tell the truth.

Or actually allow her to access the materials so she can testify fully. What a concept.

The issue *isnt* one of whether she should testify or not. The issue is the manner in which it is played out.

Or one can take the position that the far edge of 'testify/ambush' is the proper normal. I know which I would rather see employed.

Give her lawyers time to coach her how to obfuscate the truth. Sound strategy but let's don't be disingenuous and say that she is somehow being ambushed.

Not allowing her access to materials to prepare, which is what has happened here, *is* ambush. Kind of hard to argue that it is not.

Think of it this way: You get called in to an IRS audit, scheduled for tomorrow. If you misrepresent (either intentionally or accidentally) it is a criminal charge. They tell you that you cannot bring in any papers to the audit, and that the audit must take place prior to you reviewing anything.

Ambush or not?

Fair or not?

Simple setup, should be a simple answer. It is.
Layer on the political background and issue and somehow that simple answer gets transformed.

If I tweet that I'm cheating the irs and it's national news for a year then I get a subpoena, no it's not an ambush. Don't bullshite a bullshite.

(07-11-2018 11:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 11:34 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 11:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 11:12 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  One does have to ask though, how can a subpoena at this point be considered an ambush? Really.

Did a subpoena take her completely by surprise? Does she have no idea what the questions are going to center upon, and why?

Since the day the story broke of her text messages with Stork, she knew the day would come when she'd have to face the music.

And here's a novel concept. Sit down before the committee after taking the oath and then tell the truth.

Or actually allow her to access the materials so she can testify fully. What a concept.

The issue *isnt* one of whether she should testify or not. The issue is the manner in which it is played out.

Or one can take the position that the far edge of 'testify/ambush' is the proper normal. I know which I would rather see employed.

Give her lawyers time to coach her how to obfuscate the truth. Sound strategy but let's don't be disingenuous and say that she is somehow being ambushed.

Not allowing her access to materials to prepare, which is what has happened here, *is* ambush. Kind of hard to argue that it is not.

Think of it this way: You get called in to an IRS audit, scheduled for tomorrow. If you misrepresent (either intentionally or accidentally) it is a criminal charge. They tell you that you cannot bring in any papers to the audit, and that the audit must take place prior to you reviewing anything.

Ambush or not?

Fair or not?

Simple setup, should be a simple answer. It is.
Layer on the political background and issue and somehow that simple answer gets transformed.

If I tweet that I'm cheating the irs and it's national news for a year then I get a subpoena, no it's not an ambush. Don't bullshite a bullshiter.

(07-11-2018 11:42 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 11:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 11:34 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 11:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 11:12 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  One does have to ask though, how can a subpoena at this point be considered an ambush? Really.

Did a subpoena take her completely by surprise? Does she have no idea what the questions are going to center upon, and why?

Since the day the story broke of her text messages with Stork, she knew the day would come when she'd have to face the music.

And here's a novel concept. Sit down before the committee after taking the oath and then tell the truth.

Or actually allow her to access the materials so she can testify fully. What a concept.

The issue *isnt* one of whether she should testify or not. The issue is the manner in which it is played out.

Or one can take the position that the far edge of 'testify/ambush' is the proper normal. I know which I would rather see employed.

Give her lawyers time to coach her how to obfuscate the truth. Sound strategy but let's don't be disingenuous and say that she is somehow being ambushed.

Not allowing her access to materials to prepare, which is what has happened here, *is* ambush. Kind of hard to argue that it is not.

Think of it this way: You get called in to an IRS audit, scheduled for tomorrow. If you misrepresent (either intentionally or accidentally) it is a criminal charge. They tell you that you cannot bring in any papers to the audit, and that the audit must take place prior to you reviewing anything.

Ambush or not?

Fair or not?

Simple setup, should be a simple answer. It is.
Layer on the political background and issue and somehow that simple answer gets transformed.

If I tweet that I'm cheating the irs and it's national news for a year then I get a subpoena, no it's not an ambush. Don't bullshite a bullshiter.

So you dont give a rat's ass about even an appearance of fairness. Got it. Interesting point of view, to say the least.

Let's pass a law that says 'next day audits' are now required, *and* you cannot prepare with any documents. Sounds like you would have a woody for that.

(07-11-2018 11:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 11:42 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 11:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 11:34 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 11:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Or actually allow her to access the materials so she can testify fully. What a concept.

The issue *isnt* one of whether she should testify or not. The issue is the manner in which it is played out.

Or one can take the position that the far edge of 'testify/ambush' is the proper normal. I know which I would rather see employed.

Give her lawyers time to coach her how to obfuscate the truth. Sound strategy but let's don't be disingenuous and say that she is somehow being ambushed.

Not allowing her access to materials to prepare, which is what has happened here, *is* ambush. Kind of hard to argue that it is not.

Think of it this way: You get called in to an IRS audit, scheduled for tomorrow. If you misrepresent (either intentionally or accidentally) it is a criminal charge. They tell you that you cannot bring in any papers to the audit, and that the audit must take place prior to you reviewing anything.

Ambush or not?

Fair or not?

Simple setup, should be a simple answer. It is.
Layer on the political background and issue and somehow that simple answer gets transformed.

If I tweet that I'm cheating the irs and it's national news for a year then I get a subpoena, no it's not an ambush. Don't bullshite a bullshiter.

So you dont give a rat's ass about even an appearance of fairness. Got it. Interesting point of view, to say the least.

Let's pass a law that says 'next day audits' are now required, *and* you cannot prepare with any documents. Sounds like you would have a woody for that.

I pay my taxes.

Is this about me or people caught in seditious acts? Good grief.

(07-11-2018 11:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So you dont give a rat's ass about even an appearance of fairness. Got it. Interesting point of view, to say the least.

https://twitter.com/RepMarkMeadows/statu...4830704641

HOUSTON WE HAVE A PROBLEM

(07-11-2018 11:54 AM)green Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 11:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So you dont give a rat's ass about even an appearance of fairness. Got it. Interesting point of view, to say the least.

https://twitter.com/RepMarkMeadows/statu...4830704641

HOUSTON WE HAVE A PROBLEM

s & replies

Media

Likes

Mark Meadows’s Tweets

Mark Meadows

@RepMarkMeadows

·

2h

Contrary to what her attorneys are telling the media, we just learned Lisa Page actually DID review documents at the FBI yesterday. Her failure to appear before Congress this morning had little to do with 'preparation'--and everything to do with avoiding accountability.

.....like I said, don't bullshite a bullshiter

https://twitter.com/politico/status/1017079862593490944

ARE YOU WAITING FOR AN ENGRAVED INVITATION

(07-11-2018 12:00 PM)green Wrote:  

https://twitter.com/politico/status/1017079862593490944

ARE YOU WAITING FOR AN ENGRAVED INVITATION

They've been all over gummy and stork for a year but suddenly she needs more time. Give me a fricking break

(07-11-2018 11:57 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 11:54 AM)green Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 11:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So you dont give a rat's ass about even an appearance of fairness. Got it. Interesting point of view, to say the least.

https://twitter.com/RepMarkMeadows/statu...4830704641

HOUSTON WE HAVE A PROBLEM

s & replies

Media

Likes

Mark Meadows’s Tweets

Mark Meadows

@RepMarkMeadows

·

2h

Contrary to what her attorneys are telling the media, we just learned Lisa Page actually DID review documents at the FBI yesterday. Her failure to appear before Congress this morning had little to do with 'preparation'--and everything to do with avoiding accountability.

.....like I said, don't bullshite a bullshiter

I she got the documents and had a chance to adequately prepare, then I have no problems. Was the time available for her *yesterday* and *only* yesterday adequate?

I guess those questions go way beyond you who has an apparent hard-on to 'testify no matter what'. But since I called you out on that *prior* to your knowledge of the time yesterday, I will say that my previous comments to and about you still stand.

Have fun with that big giant chip on your shoulder, and full speed ahead with the ambushes even without the knowledge that we made available just a short while ago.

Or did you have super-secret clearance knowledge of her actions as she went into the building *yesterday* that you just didnt have the ability to share? So you are either a super-secret agent man who cant share his insider knowledge with us mortals, or just a pinhead who has a hard on for 'testify right now' and just lucked into the news that she saw the documents *yesterday* (without bothering to ask the follow-ups I pose above). Neat choice.

(07-11-2018 12:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 11:57 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 11:54 AM)green Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 11:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So you dont give a rat's ass about even an appearance of fairness. Got it. Interesting point of view, to say the least.

https://twitter.com/RepMarkMeadows/statu...4830704641

HOUSTON WE HAVE A PROBLEM

s & replies

Media

Likes

Mark Meadows’s Tweets

Mark Meadows

@RepMarkMeadows

·

2h

Contrary to what her attorneys are telling the media, we just learned Lisa Page actually DID review documents at the FBI yesterday. Her failure to appear before Congress this morning had little to do with 'preparation'--and everything to do with avoiding accountability.

.....like I said, don't bullshite a bullshiter

I she got the documents and had a chance to adequately prepare, then I have no problems. Was the time available for her *yesterday* and *only* yesterday adequate?

I guess those questions go way beyond you who has an apparent hard-on to 'testify no matter what'. But since I called you out on that *prior* to your knowledge of the time yesterday, I will say that my previous comments to and about you still stand.

Have fun with that big giant chip on your shoulder, and full speed ahead with the ambushes even without the knowledge that we made available just a short while ago.

Or did you have super-secret clearance knowledge of her actions as she went into the building *yesterday* that you just didnt have the ability to share? So you are either a super-secret agent man who cant share his insider knowledge with us mortals, or just a pinhead who has a hard on for 'testify right now' and just lucked into the news that she saw the documents *yesterday* (without bothering to ask the follow-ups I pose above). Neat choice.

Don't get upsetz that some people have common sense.