Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
Political Chat Rooms
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
What CV needs to tell us
What CV needs to tell us
By Xavier_Onassis
30 Aug 2022 1:01 pm in No Holds Barred Political Forum
30 Aug 2022 2:54 pm
Blackvegetable » 30 Aug 2022, 2:49 pm » wrote: ↑ Try to not be morans.....to the extent that there are PERSONAL documents, the filter team has already returned them....
But thanks for revealing the identity of Cheddy's source....
1. pay attention to this:
even though the discussions included a broad range of presidential matters.
2. Now for your feeble attempt to attack the source:
https://www.judicialwatch.org/president ... ns-drawer/
https://casetext.com/case/judicial-watc ... ords-admin
Judicial Watch is the source, MORON.
BV, the Village Idiot, is more worried about the "source" than the fact he was just curbstomped by facts.
BV is in question time out indefinitely, until he takes the pledge to answer questions one for one.
The Pledge viewtopic.php?f=3&t=100927
Popular Vote Totals 2024 viewtopic.php?p=2685476#p2685476
BV's Sporter Losshttps: viewtopic.php?p=2610828#p2610828
BV 33 miles: viewtopic.php?p=2747521#p2747521
Sources viewtopic.php?p=2589152#p2589152
The Pledge viewtopic.php?f=3&t=100927
Popular Vote Totals 2024 viewtopic.php?p=2685476#p2685476
BV's Sporter Losshttps: viewtopic.php?p=2610828#p2610828
BV 33 miles: viewtopic.php?p=2747521#p2747521
Sources viewtopic.php?p=2589152#p2589152
30 Aug 2022 3:08 pm
H
Xavier_Onassis
That is FALSE, the law says any document pertaining to the duties of the president BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE and shall be held in the NATIONAL ARCHIVES.
We already have a lot of ignorance flitting about here, we don't need yours.
How many times do you have to be shown the RULING on "Clinton's sock drawer" where it was ruled that Clinton and he alone determines what he would keep and what he would turn over. AND that the government had NO AUTHORITY to demand those tapes!!!
Suck on that one, bozo and then you can do your clown act some more!!! Under the Presidential Records Act, the President makes the determination if it is his or the Archivists.
The 10-year-old court ruling, issued by U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, rejected arguments by a conservative watchdog group that sought access to dozens of tapes recorded by Mr. Clinton and historian Taylor Branch during his administration.
Judge Jackson ruled that the tapes belonged to Mr. Clinton, even though the discussions included a broad range of presidential matters. The court ruled that the National Archives and Records Administration had no power to “seize control of them” because Mr. Clinton had used his authority under the Presidential Records Act to declare the recordings part of his personal records.
Liberals are spoiled children, miserable, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic & useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats ~O'Rourke
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
30 Aug 2022 3:18 pm
Huey » 30 Aug 2022, 2:45 pm » wrote: ↑ I know you would much rather discuss that because Cedar just handed you your ***. If what he posted is to complicated for you to understand here is the condensed version:
The 10-year-old court ruling, issued by U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, rejected arguments by a conservative watchdog group that sought access to dozens of tapes recorded by Mr. Clinton and historian Taylor Branch during his administration.
Judge Jackson ruled that the tapes belonged to Mr. Clinton, even though the discussions included a broad range of presidential matters. The court ruled that the National Archives and Records Administration had no power to “seize control of them” because Mr. Clinton had used his authority under the Presidential Records Act to declare the recordings part of his personal records.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... uld-affec/
Not on this planet.that because Cedar just handed you your ***.
It's behind a pay wall.
Who were the plaintiffs in the case?
30 Aug 2022 3:22 pm
You people are **** morans...Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin.Huey » 30 Aug 2022, 2:54 pm » wrote: ↑ 1. pay attention to this:
even though the discussions included a broad range of presidential matters.
2. Now for your feeble attempt to attack the source:
https://www.judicialwatch.org/president ... ns-drawer/
https://casetext.com/case/judicial-watc ... ords-admin
Judicial Watch is the source, MORON.
BV, the Village Idiot, is more worried about the "source" than the fact he was just curbstomped by facts.
National Archives, NOT Clinton, was the Respondent.
Grifty is a potential target in a CRIMINAL investigation where he will be the DEFENDANT.
You people are so **** stupid.
30 Aug 2022 3:22 pm
That wasn’t my source, Beavis.Blackvegetable » 30 Aug 2022, 2:49 pm » wrote: ↑ Try to not be morans.....to the extent that there are PERSONAL documents, the filter team has already returned them....
But thanks for revealing the identity of Cheddy's source....
30 Aug 2022 3:24 pm
**** idiot.Beekeeper » 30 Aug 2022, 3:08 pm » wrote: ↑ How many times do you have to be shown the RULING on "Clinton's sock drawer" where it was ruled that Clinton and he alone determines what he would keep and what he would turn over. AND that the government had NO AUTHORITY to demand those tapes!!!
Suck on that one, bozo and then you can do your clown act some more!!! Under the Presidential Records Act, the President makes the determination if it is his or the Archivists.
30 Aug 2022 3:25 pm
Don't be coy, cheddy
30 Aug 2022 3:32 pm
Why didn’t the National Archives comply with the FOIA request?Blackvegetable » 30 Aug 2022, 3:22 pm » wrote: ↑ You people are **** morans...Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin.
National Archives, NOT Clinton, was the Respondent.
Grifty is a potential target in a CRIMINAL investigation where he will be the DEFENDANT.
You people are so **** stupid.
And you have the audacity to call us stupid.
30 Aug 2022 3:35 pm
Poor
, always making incorrect assumptions, I saw an interview of Tom Fitton (Judicial Watch) on Twitter.
30 Aug 2022 4:25 pm
Because it wasn't theirs to comply with Judicial Watch's demand.Cedar » 30 Aug 2022, 3:32 pm » wrote: ↑ Why didn’t the National Archives comply with the FOIA request?
And you have the audacity to call us stupid.
FOIA doesn't cover personal property.
That's why the filter team returned the passports and privileged docs.
This is an orange about an apple.
30 Aug 2022 4:27 pm
You should have read it before repeatedly slamming your head against the curb.Huey » 30 Aug 2022, 2:54 pm » wrote: ↑ 1. pay attention to this:
even though the discussions included a broad range of presidential matters.
2. Now for your feeble attempt to attack the source:
https://www.judicialwatch.org/president ... ns-drawer/
https://casetext.com/case/judicial-watc ... ords-admin
Judicial Watch is the source, MORON.
BV, the Village Idiot, is more worried about the "source" than the fact he was just curbstomped by facts.
30 Aug 2022 4:51 pm
That NARA is really finicky about what's theirsCedar » 30 Aug 2022, 1:29 pm » wrote: ↑ The ignorance seems to be yours...
https://casetext.com/case/judicial-watc ... ords-admin
According to plaintiff, President Clinton enlisted historian Taylor Branch to assist him in creating “an oral history of his eight years in office.” In 2009, Branch published a book entitled, “The Clinton Tapes: Wrestling History with the President,” based upon extensive conversations with President Clinton during his tenure in the White House and the events Branch observed when he was in the President's office. See Joe Klein, “Book Review: Bill Session,” N.Y. Times (Sept. 25, 2009) In 2010, plaintiff filed this action. Plaintiff avers that from January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001, Branch recorded seventy-nine audiotapes that “preserved not only President Clinton's thoughts and commentary on contemporaneous events and issues he was facing as president, but, in some instances, recorded actual events such as presidential telephone conversations.”
Based on Branch's book, plaintiff contends that the recordings captured a verbatim record of President Clinton being President—performing his duties by engaging in conversations while Branch happened to be there with the tape recorder running—as opposed to simply reflecting about the ongoing Presidency with the writer. The gravamen of the complaint, then, is that the tapes should have been included among the Presidential records transferred to the Archivist of the United States at the end of the Clinton presidency, but President Clinton retained them in his personal possession when he left office, and defendant is unable to produce them now. Compl. The parties agree that the audiotapes are not currently in the government's possession. And the former President is not named as a party in this action
30 Aug 2022 4:51 pm
The complaint alleges that the tapes captured a wide range of presidential matters, including:
• “potential changes to his cabinet, including whether to fire CIA Director R. James Woolsey, Jr. and whether to nominate Madeleine Albright for Secretary of State;”
• “foreign-policy decisions such as the United States' military involvement in Haiti and the contemplated relaxation of the United States' embargo in Cuba;”
• “President Clinton's side of telephone conversations with foreign leaders, members of the United States Senate, and cabinet secretaries;”
• “President Clinton speaking to several members of the United States Senate in which President Clinton attempted to persuade the Senators to vote against a specific amendment before the Senate;”
• “President Clinton's side of a telephone conversation with Congressman William Natcher of Kentucky in which President Clinton explained his reasoning for entering into the North American Free Trade Agreement based on technical forecasts that he received during presidential briefings;”
• “President Clinton's side of a telephone conversation with U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher concerning a diplomatic impasse over Bosnia.” Compl
• “potential changes to his cabinet, including whether to fire CIA Director R. James Woolsey, Jr. and whether to nominate Madeleine Albright for Secretary of State;”
• “foreign-policy decisions such as the United States' military involvement in Haiti and the contemplated relaxation of the United States' embargo in Cuba;”
• “President Clinton's side of telephone conversations with foreign leaders, members of the United States Senate, and cabinet secretaries;”
• “President Clinton speaking to several members of the United States Senate in which President Clinton attempted to persuade the Senators to vote against a specific amendment before the Senate;”
• “President Clinton's side of a telephone conversation with Congressman William Natcher of Kentucky in which President Clinton explained his reasoning for entering into the North American Free Trade Agreement based on technical forecasts that he received during presidential briefings;”
• “President Clinton's side of a telephone conversation with U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher concerning a diplomatic impasse over Bosnia.” Compl
30 Aug 2022 6:27 pm
30 Aug 2022 6:28 pm
It is false.
You people are idiots.
30 Aug 2022 6:32 pm
Neither the Archives nor the judge were movedWarcok » 30 Aug 2022, 4:51 pm » wrote: ↑ The complaint alleges that the tapes captured a wide range of presidential matters, including:
• “potential changes to his cabinet, including whether to fire CIA Director R. James Woolsey, Jr. and whether to nominate Madeleine Albright for Secretary of State;”
• “foreign-policy decisions such as the United States' military involvement in Haiti and the contemplated relaxation of the United States' embargo in Cuba;”
• “President Clinton's side of telephone conversations with foreign leaders, members of the United States Senate, and cabinet secretaries;”
• “President Clinton speaking to several members of the United States Senate in which President Clinton attempted to persuade the Senators to vote against a specific amendment before the Senate;”
• “President Clinton's side of a telephone conversation with Congressman William Natcher of Kentucky in which President Clinton explained his reasoning for entering into the North American Free Trade Agreement based on technical forecasts that he received during presidential briefings;”
• “President Clinton's side of a telephone conversation with U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher concerning a diplomatic impasse over Bosnia.” Compl
30 Aug 2022 6:57 pm
wut are you dick sucking about?
30 Aug 2022 7:07 pm
The case to which you make reference..
You're an idiot.
30 Aug 2022 7:33 pm
and you're old with a weak hipBlackvegetable » 30 Aug 2022, 7:07 pm » wrote: ↑ The case to which you make reference..
You're an idiot.
30 Aug 2022 7:46 pm
No, fruitcake, we do NOT all know whoever in the **** you are blathering about.Xavier_Onassis » 30 Aug 2022, 1:01 pm » wrote: ↑ We all know the Trumpian fanatic that calls himself Conservative Voice.
There is no poster who goes by that handle on this board, and there never has been.
You are the one who owes explanations that you panty dance away from providing.
Instead of holding a guy's feet to the fire who DOESN'T POST HERE, prod your tiny balls to drop and hold your OWN feet to the fire.
Tell us why, if gender isn't sex, a gender claim should have ANY effect on what sex you shower or compete with.
Go, panty dancer - GO!
When you complain, ur friends roll their eyes and ur enemies rejoice
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
Who is online
In total there are 9660 users online :: 14 registered, 21 bots, and 9625 guests
Registered users: Johnny You, *Roshambo, Blackvegetable, Buck Naked, Squatchman, ROG62, RebelGator, Beekeeper, jerra b, Deezer Shoove, nefarious101, sole, Huey, Fuelman
Bots: TTD-Content, Not, GPTBot, MQQBrowser, okhttp, MicroMessenger, ADmantX, DuckDuckBot, proximic, Bolt, NING, facebookexternalhit, YandexBot, DuckDuckGo, Applebot, Googlebot, CriteoBot, Baiduspider, bingbot, curl/7, Mediapartners-Google