It's all dependent on your reliance that I did not read your link. If I read your link but do not agree, I simply am ignoring "facts," as YOU see them.
I appreciate links that are given to me, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them. I think we are running out of time. I think that Jack is running along as swiftly as he can, but that doesn't mean that Garland is or will keep up with Jack.
And neither you nor your source have ANY special insights into the DOJ and their thinking. I think the DOJ can practice rings around Trump's "team," but that doesn't even mean that Garland will allow them to file during that unwritten period of time that Garland, I suspect, is going to respect.
My question is simply, is there any reason not to file on the stolen doc case (and yeah, I think they were stolen, sorry.) But, you act like I have somehow disrespected you personally because I don't agree with your link's conclusions. It has little to do with even your links unfounded conclusions as regards whether Garland will pull the trigger in time to do the country some good.
YES, I have anxiety over this Hitler wannabe regaining power in our country. You can't see the forest for the trees. Your disdain for my opinion and feelings outweighs any reason you have, and your outrage over my lack of enthusiasm for your links opinion pretty much shorts out the discussion.
I think that they should file in DC under the best condition they can muster, because, as pointed out by a previous poster, all the hoopla done under Cannon should have been filed in DC in the first place. But you, personally, didn't discuss that. I suspect you can't, but only wish to demean my feelings, put words in my mouth, and shirk your responsibilities on this bulletin board.
I hope Garland files something before he decides he can't because the DOJ has some unwritten line that he won't cross.
We're done.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read