Nadler, calling for full Mueller report had different view when Bill Clinton was investigated

[Grokmaster]

The glaring duplicitous hypocrisy of the Hypo-Crats has been elevated to a ARTFORM , with Widdo Jerry Nadwer's DEMAND that the ENTIRE , UNREDACTED Mueller Report be handed to him, regardless of what the LAW SAYS about it....especially in light of his TOTAL CONTRADICTION of HIS OWN VIEWS...when it was a DEMOCRAT POTUS BEING INVESTIGATED.

And, even after the LAWS WERE CHANGED PER DEMOCRAT DEMANDS...he now wants those same laws IGNORED.

FLAMING HYOCRISY...thy name is DEMCORAT...again.





Top Democrat calling for full Mueller report had different view when Bill Clinton was investigated

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is the leading Democrat demanding the release of the Mueller Report “in its entirety” without redactions. His committee is planning to subpoena the Justice Department for the full report.

But back in 1998, as a member of the same committee, he vociferously opposed the release of the full Starr Report, saying that “as a matter of decency and protecting people’s privacy rights, people who may be totally innocent third parties, what must not be released at all.” Then, the president was Bill Clinton. Now, it is a Republican, Donald Trump. Ken Starr, the independent counsel investigating then-President Bill Clinton, delivered his report to Congress on Sept. 9, 1998. That night, Nadler went on Charlie Rose's show to push back against the Republican demand that the voluminous report should be made public. “It’s grand jury material. It represents statements which may or may not be true by various witnesses," Nadler said. "Salacious material. All kinds of material that it would be unfair to release,”




Top Democrat calling for full Mueller report had different view when Bill Clinton was investigated

 

[nekrodev]

It's almost like investigations into sexual misconduct between consenting adults is different than alleged collusion, financial crimes, and international crime.

 

[BlueTex]

Taking a cue from the president or are you both getting your stories from the same place?

Donald J. Trump on Twitter: "In 1998, Rep.Jerry Nadler strongly opposed the release of the Starr Report on Bill Clinton. No information whatsoever would or could be legally released. But with the NO COLLUSION Mueller Report, which the Dems hate, he wants it all. NOTHING WILL EVER SATISFY THEM! @foxandfriends"

 

[Grokmaster]

It's almost like investigations into sexual misconduct between consenting adults is different than alleged collusion, financial crimes, and international crime.

Over two dozen indictments over White Water for FINANCIAL CRIMES....COLLUSION WAS ALWAYS A LIE....PERJURY by CLINTON WAS NOT.


SILLIASS attempt to cover for glaring HYPOCRISY...duly noted.

 

[Grokmaster]

Taking a cue from the president or are you both getting your stories from the same place?

Donald J. Trump on Twitter: "In 1998, Rep.Jerry Nadler strongly opposed the release of the Starr Report on Bill Clinton. No information whatsoever would or could be legally released. But with the NO COLLUSION Mueller Report, which the Dems hate, he wants it all. NOTHING WILL EVER SATISFY THEM! @foxandfriends"

Way to IGNORE Widdo Nadwr's , (and YOUR OWN) HYPOCRISY.

There's VIDEO in the OP link...which you, OBVIOUSLY, didn't bother to read...per usual.

 

[dixon01767]

It's almost like investigations into sexual misconduct between consenting adults is different than alleged collusion, financial crimes, and international crime.

Clinton wasnt investigated for sexual misconduct. It was for lying under oath about his sexual misconduct. Perjury is against the law. Talking to Russians is not.

 

[nekrodev]

Over two dozen indictments over White Water for FINANCIAL CRIMES....COLLUSION WAS ALWAYS A LIE....PERJURY by CLINTON WAS NOT.


SILLIASS attempt to cover for glaring HYPOCRISY...duly noted.

none of that had anything to do with Starr's report. His report was exclusively related to the sexual misconduct and potential issues relating to that. None of those indictments regarding financial crimes were part of Starr's investigation or report.

 

[nekrodev]

Clinton wasnt investigated for sexual misconduct. It was for lying under oath about his sexual misconduct. Perjury is against the law. Talking to Russians is not.

lmfao that's a mighty huge distinction you made there

sure showed me

 

[Grokmaster]

none of that had anything to do with Starr's report. His report was exclusively related to the sexual misconduct and potential issues relating to that. None of those indictments regarding financial crimes were part of Starr's investigation or report.

Which has what to do with THIS and the HYPO-CRATS call to IGNORE THE LAWS THEY PASSED?


But back in 1998, as a member of the same committee, he vociferously opposed the release of the full Starr Report, saying that “as a matter of decency and protecting people’s privacy rights, people who may be totally innocent third parties, what must not be released at all.” Then, the president was Bill Clinton. Now, it is a Republican, Donald Trump. Ken Starr, the independent counsel investigating then-President Bill Clinton, delivered his report to Congress on Sept. 9, 1998. That night, Nadler went on Charlie Rose's show to push back against the Republican demand that the voluminous report should be made public. “It’s grand jury material. It represents statements which may or may not be true by various witnesses," Nadler said. "Salacious material. All kinds of material that it would be unfair to release,”



STRAWMAN MUCH?

 

[Lesh]

Over two dozen indictments over White Water for FINANCIAL CRIMES....COLLUSION WAS ALWAYS A LIE....PERJURY by CLINTON WAS NOT.


SILLIASS attempt to cover for glaring HYPOCRISY...duly noted.

So you FULLY support going after Trump's financial crimes?

He';s screwed then

 

[nekrodev]

Which has what to do with THIS and the HYPO-CRATS call to IGNORE THE LAWS THEY PASSED?


But back in 1998, as a member of the same committee, he vociferously opposed the release of the full Starr Report, saying that “as a matter of decency and protecting people’s privacy rights, people who may be totally innocent third parties, what must not be released at all.” Then, the president was Bill Clinton. Now, it is a Republican, Donald Trump. Ken Starr, the independent counsel investigating then-President Bill Clinton, delivered his report to Congress on Sept. 9, 1998. That night, Nadler went on Charlie Rose's show to push back against the Republican demand that the voluminous report should be made public. “It’s grand jury material. It represents statements which may or may not be true by various witnesses," Nadler said. "Salacious material. All kinds of material that it would be unfair to release,”



STRAWMAN MUCH?

wow, so it's not just the right-wingers on the other forums i'm on or the ones on tv. even the ones on supposedly serious political discussion forums are morons and liars.

the Starr report HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE SEXUAL MISCONDUCT ISSUE, it did not touch on any of the indictments related to White Water. the Democrats were opposed to releasing a bunch of **** detailing when and how Monika Lewinsky sucked someone's dick. omg, clinton lied about it, yeah, big ****ing whoop. that's literally his crime, lying about something. and yet, you clearly support Trump. who lies more in an hours than Bill Clinton did during that entire investigation.

i'm literally done engaging with you people.

 

[americanwoman]

The glaring duplicitous hypocrisy of the Hypo-Crats has been elevated to a ARTFORM , with Widdo Jerry Nadwer's DEMAND that the ENTIRE , UNREDACTED Mueller Report be handed to him, regardless of what the LAW SAYS about it....especially in light of his TOTAL CONTRADICTION of HIS OWN VIEWS...when it was a DEMOCRAT POTUS BEING INVESTIGATED.

And, even after the LAWS WERE CHANGED PER DEMOCRAT DEMANDS...he now wants those same laws IGNORED.

FLAMING HYOCRISY...thy name is DEMCORAT...again.





Top Democrat calling for full Mueller report had different view when Bill Clinton was investigated

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is the leading Democrat demanding the release of the Mueller Report “in its entirety” without redactions. His committee is planning to subpoena the Justice Department for the full report.

But back in 1998, as a member of the same committee, he vociferously opposed the release of the full Starr Report, saying that “as a matter of decency and protecting people’s privacy rights, people who may be totally innocent third parties, what must not be released at all.” Then, the president was Bill Clinton. Now, it is a Republican, Donald Trump. Ken Starr, the independent counsel investigating then-President Bill Clinton, delivered his report to Congress on Sept. 9, 1998. That night, Nadler went on Charlie Rose's show to push back against the Republican demand that the voluminous report should be made public. “It’s grand jury material. It represents statements which may or may not be true by various witnesses," Nadler said. "Salacious material. All kinds of material that it would be unfair to release,”




Top Democrat calling for full Mueller report had different view when Bill Clinton was investigated


View attachment 67253988

You call Nadler a hypocrite but I have a hard time imagining a hyper partisan such as yourself also staying consistent in the two investigations. You will deny it but I have read enough of your posts to determine just where you stand.

 

[Sampson Simpson]

A president having sexual relations with someone (which I'm sure there are tons of congressman who have done the same) vs a campaign working with a foreign adversary to influence the election.

yeah, same difference. Meanwhile, the stupid hacks don't comment about republcians who published the Starr finding are now fighting this. Talk about hypocrites.

oh that's right, to right wing scum, its only good if republicans are hypocrites

Another Grok steaming pile of troll ****

 

[Harshaw]

wow, so it's not just the right-wingers on the other forums i'm on or the ones on tv. even the ones on supposedly serious political discussion forums are morons and liars.

the Starr report HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE SEXUAL MISCONDUCT ISSUE, it did not touch on any of the indictments related to White Water. the Democrats were opposed to releasing a bunch of **** detailing when and how Monika Lewinsky sucked someone's dick. omg, clinton lied about it, yeah, big ****ing whoop. that's literally his crime, lying about something. and yet, you clearly support Trump. who lies more in an hours than Bill Clinton did during that entire investigation.

i'm literally done engaging with you people.

You say this after fewer than two days and 84 posts? Perhaps the Internet is not for you.

 

[nekrodev]

You say this after fewer than two days and 84 posts? Perhaps the Internet is not for you.

i wanted to give a dedicated political forum a shot. if the rules of this site were enforced, people like grok would be perma-ip-banned.

if i wanted to deal with trolls shouting nonsense and people completely disregarding reality, i can do that on any of the other websites i visit. was hoping this place would be better.

 

[Harshaw]

i wanted to give a dedicated political forum a shot. if the rules of this site were enforced, people like grok would be perma-ip-banned.

You've supposedly only been here since Sunday, and now you've made a grand total of 86 posts. What gives you such a familiarity with the rules, how they're "enforced," and Grok's history?

if i wanted to deal with trolls shouting nonsense and people completely disregarding reality, i can do that on any of the other websites i visit. was hoping this place would be better.

Again, given what you represent as an extremely limited experience here, what makes you draw these conclusions?

 

[snakestretcher]

You say this after fewer than two days and 84 posts? Perhaps the Internet is not for you.

He's a quick learner, obviously. It doesn't take a genius long to figure out the hyper-partisan stupidity of Trump's denialist base.

 

[Harshaw]

But let's engage you on substance here:

It's almost like investigations into sexual misconduct between consenting adults is different than alleged collusion, financial crimes, and international crime.

Are the rules for protecting the innocent somehow different, or should not apply, based on the type of thing being investigated? Are you saying that because the subject of the investigations were different, there are no real "innocents"? If not, what specifically is the difference that would warrant release of confidential information regarding innocent people?

Also, if the crimes are more serious this time, doesn't that make even more of an argument for protecting the integrity of an ongoing grand jury process?

 

[Harshaw]

He's a quick learner, obviously. It doesn't take a genius long to figure out the hyper-partisan stupidity of Trump's denialist base.

:shrug: See post #17. Want to give it a shot?

 

[snakestretcher]

i wanted to give a dedicated political forum a shot. if the rules of this site were enforced, people like grok would be perma-ip-banned.

if i wanted to deal with trolls shouting nonsense and people completely disregarding reality, i can do that on any of the other websites i visit. was hoping this place would be better.

If I were you I would avoid 'Political Forum'; it has become a reactionary cess-pit of racism and bigotry. I recognise several far-right posters here who also posted there, Grokmaster among them.

 

[snakestretcher]

You've supposedly only been here since Sunday, and now you've made a grand total of 86 posts. What gives you such a familiarity with the rules, how they're "enforced," and Grok's history?



Again, given what you represent as an extremely limited experience here, what makes you draw these conclusions?

I suspect he can read.

 

[Harshaw]

It's almost like investigations into sexual misconduct between consenting adults is different than alleged collusion, financial crimes, and international crime.

But let's engage you on substance here:

Are the rules for protecting the innocent somehow different, or should not apply, based on the type of thing being investigated? Are you saying that because the subject of the investigations were different, there are no real "innocents"? If not, what specifically is the difference that would warrant release of confidential information regarding innocent people?

Also, if the crimes are more serious this time, doesn't that make even more of an argument for protecting the integrity of an ongoing grand jury process?

^^^^

He's a quick learner, obviously. It doesn't take a genius long to figure out the hyper-partisan stupidity of Trump's denialist base.

:shrug: See post #17. Want to give it a shot?

Neither of you? OK.

 

[Harshaw]

Others currently in Congress who voted not to release the Starr report:

Jim Clyburn
Elijah Cummings
Eliot Engel
Eva Clayton
Sheila Jackson-Lee
John Lewis
Ed Markey (now a Senator)
Maxine Waters
Nancy Pelosi
Richard Neal
Jose Serrano
Nydia Velazquez
Gregory Meeks
Susan Lofgren
Barbara Lee
Alcee Hastings

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1998/roll425.xml#N

 

[OscarLevant]

The glaring duplicitous hypocrisy of the Hypo-Crats has been elevated to a ARTFORM , with Widdo Jerry Nadwer's DEMAND that the ENTIRE , UNREDACTED Mueller Report be handed to him, regardless of what the LAW SAYS about it....especially in light of his TOTAL CONTRADICTION of HIS OWN VIEWS...when it was a DEMOCRAT POTUS BEING INVESTIGATED.

And, even after the LAWS WERE CHANGED PER DEMOCRAT DEMANDS...he now wants those same laws IGNORED.

FLAMING HYOCRISY...thy name is DEMCORAT...again.





Top Democrat calling for full Mueller report had different view when Bill Clinton was investigated

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is the leading Democrat demanding the release of the Mueller Report “in its entirety” without redactions. His committee is planning to subpoena the Justice Department for the full report.

But back in 1998, as a member of the same committee, he vociferously opposed the release of the full Starr Report, saying that “as a matter of decency and protecting people’s privacy rights, people who may be totally innocent third parties, what must not be released at all.” Then, the president was Bill Clinton. Now, it is a Republican, Donald Trump. Ken Starr, the independent counsel investigating then-President Bill Clinton, delivered his report to Congress on Sept. 9, 1998. That night, Nadler went on Charlie Rose's show to push back against the Republican demand that the voluminous report should be made public. “It’s grand jury material. It represents statements which may or may not be true by various witnesses," Nadler said. "Salacious material. All kinds of material that it would be unfair to release,”




Top Democrat calling for full Mueller report had different view when Bill Clinton was investigated

I'll see your Nadler, and raise you Lindsey Graham, the hypocrite's hypocrite

Lindsey Graham Walks Back 'Hell To Pay' Comment on Sessions


Joe Scarborough singles out Lindsey Graham as a hypocrite: "He shouldn’t even be in Congress" | Salon.com

 

[Grokmaster]

So you FULLY support going after Trump's financial crimes?

He';s screwed then

What "financial crimes" are part of "RUSSIAN COLLUSION"? They were THE POINT of the White Water probe.


Desperate attempt to RUN AWAY from Widdo Jewwey Nadwer's asinine bull****, duly noted.