1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. REC.AUDIO.OPINION

  • Maricopa has some explaining to do

    From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Mon Nov 21 16:49:35 2022
    https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/221119%20Letter%20to%20Maricopa%20County%20re%202022%20General%20Election%20Administration.pdf

    “According to Maricopa County, at least 60 voting locations had issues related to some ballot-on-demand (BOD) printers having printer configuration settings that were non-uniform, which appeared to have resulted in ballots that were unable to be read
    by on-site ballot tabulators. Based on sworn complaints submitted by election workers employed by Maricopa County, the BOD printers were tested on Monday, November 7 without any apparent problems. Many of those election workers report that despite the
    successful testing the night before, the tabulators began experiencing problems reading ballots printed by the BOD printers within the first thirty minutes of voting on Tuesday, November 8, 2022.”

    Who f'd with the printers config after testing? 60 locations is not a freaking accident.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Tue Nov 22 10:13:50 2022
    On 11/21/22 6:49 PM, ScottW wrote:

    Who f'd with the printers config after testing? 60 locations is not a freaking accident
    Settings will be correct for the automatic recounts.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Tue Nov 22 15:06:44 2022
    On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 8:13:52 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 11/21/22 6:49 PM, ScottW wrote:

    Who f'd with the printers config after testing? 60 locations is not a freaking accident
    Settings will be correct for the automatic recounts.

    After they created lines around the block cuz people couldn't get their ballots printed.

    You seem totally confused about what actually happened.

    As I understand it....
    The printer prints the ballot "on demand" when the voter arrives at the poll center.
    The voter takes the ballot to a booth and fills it out (colors the dots).
    They give it to a poll worker who puts it in a scanner. It can't read it cuz the printed part is too light (some kind of alignment/ballot identifier can't be read).
    Once they find this happening, they have to stop figure out wtf is going on. They finally trace it to the printer. By then the lines are around the block. Some people were sent to other locations only to find they too were stopped with printer issues.
    Judge then refuses to leave polls open.
    And ballots that wouldn't scan were mixed with ballots that were scanned.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Wed Nov 23 10:03:20 2022
    On 11/22/22 5:06 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 8:13:52 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 11/21/22 6:49 PM, ScottW wrote:

    Who f'd with the printers config after testing? 60 locations is not a freaking accident
    Settings will be correct for the automatic recounts.

    After they created lines around the block cuz people couldn't get their ballots printed.

    You seem totally confused about what actually happened.

    How so? All I said was the recount will correct the problem with no
    reference to "what actually happened."

    As I understand it....
    The printer prints the ballot "on demand" when the voter arrives at the poll center.
    The voter takes the ballot to a booth and fills it out (colors the dots). They give it to a poll worker who puts it in a scanner. It can't read it cuz the printed part is too light (some kind of alignment/ballot identifier can't be read).
    Once they find this happening, they have to stop figure out wtf is going on. They finally trace it to the printer. By then the lines are around the block. Some people were sent to other locations only to find they too were stopped with printer issues.
    Judge then refuses to leave polls open.
    And ballots that wouldn't scan were mixed with ballots that were scanned.

    Now who's confused? The "ballots ... unable to be read by the tabulators
    at the polling locations ... were placed in “Box 3” at the voting sites. The box is a secure box at the site, and the votes were taken to be
    tabulated at the county’s facility. "

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Wed Nov 23 10:26:00 2022
    On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 8:03:22 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 11/22/22 5:06 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 8:13:52 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 11/21/22 6:49 PM, ScottW wrote:

    Who f'd with the printers config after testing? 60 locations is not a freaking accident
    Settings will be correct for the automatic recounts.

    After they created lines around the block cuz people couldn't get their ballots printed.

    You seem totally confused about what actually happened.
    How so? All I said was the recount will correct the problem with no reference to "what actually happened."

    How do you recount the votes of voters who were turned away and never got to vote?

    As I understand it....
    The printer prints the ballot "on demand" when the voter arrives at the poll center.
    The voter takes the ballot to a booth and fills it out (colors the dots). They give it to a poll worker who puts it in a scanner. It can't read it cuz the printed part is too light (some kind of alignment/ballot identifier can't be read).
    Once they find this happening, they have to stop figure out wtf is going on.
    They finally trace it to the printer. By then the lines are around the block.
    Some people were sent to other locations only to find they too were stopped with printer issues.
    Judge then refuses to leave polls open.
    And ballots that wouldn't scan were mixed with ballots that were scanned.
    Now who's confused? The "ballots ... unable to be read by the tabulators
    at the polling locations ... were placed in “Box 3” at the voting sites.

    Except when they weren't. Lots of reports that didn't always happen.

    And nothing can fix the voters who were turned away in frustration.
    If this was Philadelphia you'd be screaming voter suppression.

    Ok, you don't scream....you'd be squeaking voter suppression.

    ScottW



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Wed Nov 23 15:47:16 2022
    On 11/23/22 12:26 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 8:03:22 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 11/22/22 5:06 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 8:13:52 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 11/21/22 6:49 PM, ScottW wrote:

    Who f'd with the printers config after testing? 60 locations is not a freaking accident
    Settings will be correct for the automatic recounts.

    After they created lines around the block cuz people couldn't get their ballots printed.

    You seem totally confused about what actually happened.
    How so? All I said was the recount will correct the problem with no
    reference to "what actually happened."

    How do you recount the votes of voters who were turned away and never got to vote?

    Good question, but I didn't mention it.

    As I understand it....
    The printer prints the ballot "on demand" when the voter arrives at the poll center.
    The voter takes the ballot to a booth and fills it out (colors the dots). >>> They give it to a poll worker who puts it in a scanner. It can't read it cuz the printed part is too light (some kind of alignment/ballot identifier can't be read).
    Once they find this happening, they have to stop figure out wtf is going on.
    They finally trace it to the printer. By then the lines are around the block.
    Some people were sent to other locations only to find they too were stopped with printer issues.
    Judge then refuses to leave polls open.
    And ballots that wouldn't scan were mixed with ballots that were scanned. >> Now who's confused? The "ballots ... unable to be read by the tabulators
    at the polling locations ... were placed in “Box 3” at the voting sites.

    Except when they weren't. Lots of reports that didn't always happen.

    Yes, "reports."

    And nothing can fix the voters who were turned away in frustration.
    If this was Philadelphia you'd be screaming voter suppression.

    Ok, you don't scream....you'd be squeaking voter suppression.
    If Philadelphia voters had the option of casting votes to be counted
    later or going to another precinct, I'd have no case for voter suppression.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Thu Nov 24 08:47:55 2022
    On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 1:47:18 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 11/23/22 12:26 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 8:03:22 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 11/22/22 5:06 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 8:13:52 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 11/21/22 6:49 PM, ScottW wrote:

    Who f'd with the printers config after testing? 60 locations is not a freaking accident
    Settings will be correct for the automatic recounts.

    After they created lines around the block cuz people couldn't get their ballots printed.

    You seem totally confused about what actually happened.
    How so? All I said was the recount will correct the problem with no
    reference to "what actually happened."

    How do you recount the votes of voters who were turned away and never got to vote?
    Good question, but I didn't mention it.

    As if your lack of insight matters.

    As I understand it....
    The printer prints the ballot "on demand" when the voter arrives at the poll center.
    The voter takes the ballot to a booth and fills it out (colors the dots).
    They give it to a poll worker who puts it in a scanner. It can't read it cuz the printed part is too light (some kind of alignment/ballot identifier can't be read).
    Once they find this happening, they have to stop figure out wtf is going on.
    They finally trace it to the printer. By then the lines are around the block.
    Some people were sent to other locations only to find they too were stopped with printer issues.
    Judge then refuses to leave polls open.
    And ballots that wouldn't scan were mixed with ballots that were scanned.
    Now who's confused? The "ballots ... unable to be read by the tabulators >> at the polling locations ... were placed in “Box 3” at the voting sites.

    Except when they weren't. Lots of reports that didn't always happen.
    Yes, "reports."
    And nothing can fix the voters who were turned away in frustration.
    If this was Philadelphia you'd be screaming voter suppression.

    Ok, you don't scream....you'd be squeaking voter suppression.
    If Philadelphia voters had the option of casting votes to be counted
    later or going to another precinct, I'd have no case for voter suppression.

    I'm going to frame that one.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Fri Nov 25 09:42:17 2022
    On 11/24/22 10:47 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 1:47:18 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 11/23/22 12:26 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 8:03:22 AM UTC-8, MINe109
    wrote:
    On 11/22/22 5:06 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 8:13:52 AM UTC-8, MINe109
    wrote:
    On 11/21/22 6:49 PM, ScottW wrote:

    How do you recount the votes of voters who were turned away and
    never got to vote?
    Good question, but I didn't mention it.

    As if your lack of insight matters.

    As much as yours does.

    As I understand it.... The printer prints the ballot "on
    demand" when the voter arrives at the poll center. The voter
    takes the ballot to a booth and fills it out (colors the
    dots). They give it to a poll worker who puts it in a
    scanner. It can't read it cuz the printed part is too light
    (some kind of alignment/ballot identifier can't be read).
    Once they find this happening, they have to stop figure out
    wtf is going on. They finally trace it to the printer. By
    then the lines are around the block. Some people were sent to
    other locations only to find they too were stopped with
    printer issues. Judge then refuses to leave polls open. And
    ballots that wouldn't scan were mixed with ballots that were
    scanned.
    Now who's confused? The "ballots ... unable to be read by the
    tabulators at the polling locations ... were placed in “Box 3”
    at the voting sites.

    Except when they weren't. Lots of reports that didn't always
    happen.
    Yes, "reports."
    And nothing can fix the voters who were turned away in
    frustration. If this was Philadelphia you'd be screaming voter
    suppression.

    Ok, you don't scream....you'd be squeaking voter suppression.
    If Philadelphia voters had the option of casting votes to be
    counted later or going to another precinct, I'd have no case for
    voter suppression.

    I'm going to frame that one.

    Please do and display it prominently.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Fri Nov 25 09:01:26 2022
    On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 7:42:19 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 11/24/22 10:47 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 1:47:18 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 11/23/22 12:26 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 8:03:22 AM UTC-8, MINe109
    wrote:
    On 11/22/22 5:06 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 8:13:52 AM UTC-8, MINe109
    wrote:
    On 11/21/22 6:49 PM, ScottW wrote:

    How do you recount the votes of voters who were turned away and
    never got to vote?
    Good question, but I didn't mention it.

    As if your lack of insight matters.
    As much as yours does.
    As I understand it.... The printer prints the ballot "on
    demand" when the voter arrives at the poll center. The voter
    takes the ballot to a booth and fills it out (colors the
    dots). They give it to a poll worker who puts it in a
    scanner. It can't read it cuz the printed part is too light
    (some kind of alignment/ballot identifier can't be read).
    Once they find this happening, they have to stop figure out
    wtf is going on. They finally trace it to the printer. By
    then the lines are around the block. Some people were sent to
    other locations only to find they too were stopped with
    printer issues. Judge then refuses to leave polls open. And
    ballots that wouldn't scan were mixed with ballots that were
    scanned.
    Now who's confused? The "ballots ... unable to be read by the
    tabulators at the polling locations ... were placed in “Box 3”
    at the voting sites.

    Except when they weren't. Lots of reports that didn't always
    happen.
    Yes, "reports."
    And nothing can fix the voters who were turned away in
    frustration. If this was Philadelphia you'd be screaming voter
    suppression.

    Ok, you don't scream....you'd be squeaking voter suppression.
    If Philadelphia voters had the option of casting votes to be
    counted later or going to another precinct, I'd have no case for
    voter suppression.

    I'm going to frame that one.
    Please do and display it prominently.

    IKYABWAI is especially lame from you.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Fri Nov 25 13:26:29 2022
    On 11/25/22 11:01 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 7:42:19 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:

    I'm going to frame that one.
    Please do and display it prominently.

    IKYABWAI is especially lame from you.

    It's no wonder you inspire so much arguing by definition as it's not
    clear you understand many words.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Fri Nov 25 19:03:14 2022
    On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 11:26:31 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 11/25/22 11:01 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 7:42:19 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:

    I'm going to frame that one.
    Please do and display it prominently.

    IKYABWAI is especially lame from you.
    It's no wonder you inspire so much arguing by definition as it's not
    clear you understand many words.

    I am inspirational! LoL.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Sat Nov 26 09:00:15 2022
    On 11/25/22 9:03 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 11:26:31 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 11/25/22 11:01 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 7:42:19 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:

    I'm going to frame that one.
    Please do and display it prominently.

    IKYABWAI is especially lame from you.
    It's no wonder you inspire so much arguing by definition as it's not
    clear you understand many words.

    I am inspirational! LoL.

    For instance, you inspired the naming the category of "keyword bingo."
    It's useful for derailing an exchange by picking out a detail and
    avoiding the overall argument.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Sat Nov 26 09:04:47 2022
    On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 7:00:17 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 11/25/22 9:03 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 11:26:31 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 11/25/22 11:01 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 7:42:19 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:

    I'm going to frame that one.
    Please do and display it prominently.

    IKYABWAI is especially lame from you.
    It's no wonder you inspire so much arguing by definition as it's not
    clear you understand many words.

    I am inspirational! LoL.
    For instance, you inspired the naming the category of "keyword bingo."
    It's useful for derailing an exchange by picking out a detail and
    avoiding the overall argument.

    You mean like you bitching about when rather than what I said. Got it.

    But you failed to inspire anything so.....

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Sat Nov 26 12:37:07 2022
    On 11/26/22 11:04 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 7:00:17 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 11/25/22 9:03 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 11:26:31 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 11/25/22 11:01 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 7:42:19 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:

    I'm going to frame that one.
    Please do and display it prominently.

    IKYABWAI is especially lame from you.
    It's no wonder you inspire so much arguing by definition as it's not
    clear you understand many words.

    I am inspirational! LoL.
    For instance, you inspired the naming the category of "keyword bingo."
    It's useful for derailing an exchange by picking out a detail and
    avoiding the overall argument.

    You mean like you bitching about when rather than what I said. Got it.

    No, my complaint was you claimed a general statement was proof of a
    specific statement.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Sat Nov 26 17:14:02 2022
    On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 10:37:09 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 11/26/22 11:04 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 7:00:17 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 11/25/22 9:03 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 11:26:31 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 11/25/22 11:01 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 7:42:19 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:

    I'm going to frame that one.
    Please do and display it prominently.

    IKYABWAI is especially lame from you.
    It's no wonder you inspire so much arguing by definition as it's not >>>> clear you understand many words.

    I am inspirational! LoL.
    For instance, you inspired the naming the category of "keyword bingo."
    It's useful for derailing an exchange by picking out a detail and
    avoiding the overall argument.

    You mean like you bitching about when rather than what I said. Got it.
    No, my complaint was you claimed a general statement was proof of a
    specific statement.

    and it was as I told you so.

    Now try and explain to Trevor why piles of frozen to death bodies can't compare to some BS Trump comment taken out of context.
    He needs some counseling....and probably a psychiatrist.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Sat Nov 26 20:51:06 2022
    On 11/26/22 7:14 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 10:37:09 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 11/26/22 11:04 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 7:00:17 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 11/25/22 9:03 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 11:26:31 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 11/25/22 11:01 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 7:42:19 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:

    I'm going to frame that one.
    Please do and display it prominently.

    IKYABWAI is especially lame from you.
    It's no wonder you inspire so much arguing by definition as it's not >>>>>> clear you understand many words.

    I am inspirational! LoL.
    For instance, you inspired the naming the category of "keyword bingo." >>>> It's useful for derailing an exchange by picking out a detail and
    avoiding the overall argument.

    You mean like you bitching about when rather than what I said. Got it.
    No, my complaint was you claimed a general statement was proof of a
    specific statement.

    and it was as I told you so.

    Your statement in context was that you predicted Garland was going to
    appoint a special prosecutor.

    The existence of open-ended prosecutions is a given, with many
    Republican examples for which you've never uttered a complaint.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Sat Nov 26 20:00:11 2022
    On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 6:51:09 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 11/26/22 7:14 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 10:37:09 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 11/26/22 11:04 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 7:00:17 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 11/25/22 9:03 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 11:26:31 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote: >>>>>> On 11/25/22 11:01 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 7:42:19 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote: >>>>>>
    I'm going to frame that one.
    Please do and display it prominently.

    IKYABWAI is especially lame from you.
    It's no wonder you inspire so much arguing by definition as it's not >>>>>> clear you understand many words.

    I am inspirational! LoL.
    For instance, you inspired the naming the category of "keyword bingo." >>>> It's useful for derailing an exchange by picking out a detail and
    avoiding the overall argument.

    You mean like you bitching about when rather than what I said. Got it.
    No, my complaint was you claimed a general statement was proof of a
    specific statement.

    and it was as I told you so.
    Your statement in context was that you predicted Garland was going to
    appoint a special prosecutor.

    The existence of open-ended prosecutions is a given, with many
    Republican examples for which you've never uttered a complaint.

    You used Benghazi as example but there was never a gov't prosecution
    as it was Obama's DoJ in that role.
    Same 'ol BS....you can't keep responsibility straight.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Sun Nov 27 12:16:15 2022
    On 11/26/22 10:00 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 6:51:09 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:

    Your statement in context was that you predicted Garland was going to
    appoint a special prosecutor.

    The existence of open-ended prosecutions is a given, with many
    Republican examples for which you've never uttered a complaint.

    You used Benghazi as example but there was never a gov't prosecution
    as it was Obama's DoJ in that role.

    That, and there was no crime involved. If you want to distinguish
    between open-ended politically motivated criminal investigations and
    repeated unwarranted Congression inquiries, you'll find Republicans on
    the wrong side either way.

    Same 'ol BS....you can't keep responsibility straight.

    We'll see which of us defends open ended investigations when McCarthy
    takes over the House.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Sun Nov 27 17:47:42 2022
    On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 10:16:18 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 11/26/22 10:00 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 6:51:09 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:

    Your statement in context was that you predicted Garland was going to
    appoint a special prosecutor.

    The existence of open-ended prosecutions is a given, with many
    Republican examples for which you've never uttered a complaint.

    You used Benghazi as example but there was never a gov't prosecution
    as it was Obama's DoJ in that role.
    That, and there was no crime involved.

    Dereliction of duty is a crime.

    If you want to distinguish
    between open-ended politically motivated criminal investigations and
    repeated unwarranted Congression inquiries, you'll find Republicans on
    the wrong side either way.

    LoL...you really think one side or the other has a high road there?
    Now you're almost as kooky as Trevor.

    Same 'ol BS....you can't keep responsibility straight.
    We'll see which of us defends open ended investigations when McCarthy
    takes over the House.

    It's the house....they have oversight responsibility. They should always be investigating.
    Very different than the FBI or DoJ...but you obviously can't see the difference.
    The only real question for the House is are they trying make things better or just use it as a political cudgel?

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Mon Nov 28 09:27:24 2022
    On 11/27/22 7:47 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 10:16:18 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 11/26/22 10:00 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 6:51:09 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:

    Your statement in context was that you predicted Garland was going to
    appoint a special prosecutor.

    The existence of open-ended prosecutions is a given, with many
    Republican examples for which you've never uttered a complaint.

    You used Benghazi as example but there was never a gov't prosecution
    as it was Obama's DoJ in that role.
    That, and there was no crime involved.

    Dereliction of duty is a crime.

    Wasn't charged despite, what, eleven Congressional investigations?

    Wiki: "Despite numerous allegations against Obama administration
    officials of scandal, cover-up and lying regarding the Benghazi attack
    and its aftermath, none of the ten investigations found any evidence to
    support those allegations."

    Take joy you get to rerun your discredited talking points.

    If you want to distinguish
    between open-ended politically motivated criminal investigations and
    repeated unwarranted Congression inquiries, you'll find Republicans on
    the wrong side either way.

    LoL...you really think one side or the other has a high road there?
    Now you're almost as kooky as Trevor.

    Yes, I do. Republicans have been looking for pay back since Watergate.
    High profile Democratic investigations tend to be for real crimes.

    Same 'ol BS....you can't keep responsibility straight.
    We'll see which of us defends open ended investigations when McCarthy
    takes over the House.

    It's the house....they have oversight responsibility. They should always be investigating.
    Very different than the FBI or DoJ...but you obviously can't see the difference.
    The only real question for the House is are they trying make things better or just use it as a political cudgel?

    Yes, right on cue. To conflate oversight with endless nuisance
    investigations is predictable and the justification won't extend to
    Democrats in power.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)