Welcome Guest
Sign In | Register

but not the result

Posted on: September 30, 2019 at 09:41:07 CT
gmmm98 MU
Posts:
13786
Member For:
15.14 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
that is the point. the "changed rule" (that both you and blake acknowledge never existed) WOULD change the result.

it seems an appropriate time to acknowledge the icig is a trump appointee approved by a republican senate.

you don't have to like the result to acknowledge the process worked. the hearsay observation is a valid one but it was never going to prevent congressional oversight because of the statutory/regulatory framework. confront the hearsay issue head-on if it is fruitful. trump's transcript will make that more difficult, imo.
Report Message

Please explain why this message is being reported.

REPLY

Handle:
Password:
Subject:

MESSAGE THREAD

Changed rules! - Ace AU - 9/30 07:45:45
     which is 100% correct (nm) - Sal CMSU - 9/30 07:49:15
     Is his statement not true? (nm) - tcat KC - 9/30 07:48:42
          It was a question not a statement (nm) - pickle MU - 9/30 07:54:03
               that's true (nm) - Sal CMSU - 9/30 07:55:11
          the statute did not change - gmmm98 MU - 9/30 07:50:26
               use your brain. i'll give you an example. I've made no - blake1771 KC - 9/30 08:35:28
                    a more comparable comparison is - gmmm98 MU - 9/30 09:12:40
                         a more apt analogy would be an individual making - blake1771 KC - 9/30 09:43:56
                              maybe you reported it because you're an a**hole - gmmm98 MU - 9/30 10:40:09
                         that is an awful analogy (nm) - Sal CMSU - 9/30 09:15:21
                    ok. the statute is unchanged. show me where the CFRs changed - gmmm98 MU - 9/30 08:45:28
                         are you talking about the code of fed regulations? you can - blake1771 KC - 9/30 08:50:43
                              a rule that does not exist was changed - gmmm98 MU - 9/30 09:01:36
                                   well if you want to talk rules the OLC said the entire f'n - blake1771 KC - 9/30 09:10:59
                                        the statute specifically contemplates continued protection - gmmm98 MU - 9/30 09:18:58
                                             You are all over the place (nm) - Sal CMSU - 9/30 09:23:22
                                                  it was directly responsive. - gmmm98 MU - 9/30 09:31:05
                                                       It would not have been deemed "urgent" to begin with - Sal CMSU - 9/30 09:32:35
                                                            but not the result - gmmm98 MU - 9/30 09:41:07
                                                                 i'm not acknowledging the rule never existed. you're - blake1771 KC - 9/30 09:47:25
                                                                      at least you're getting to the meat and potatoes. - gmmm98 MU - 9/30 10:03:42
                                                                 What result are you talking about? - Sal CMSU - 9/30 09:43:56
                                        lol but that's different! (nm) - Sal CMSU - 9/30 09:14:50
                                   The reporting requirements on the urgent form - Sal CMSU - 9/30 09:05:49
                         jfc you are stuck on a liberal talking point (nm) - Sal CMSU - 9/30 08:50:37
               They changed the requirement for something to - Sal CMSU - 9/30 08:00:10
                    the statute is unchanged - gmmm98 MU - 9/30 08:04:34
                         It's odd you keep going to that - Sal CMSU - 9/30 08:15:13
                              it's odd the subject is "the rules" - gmmm98 MU - 9/30 08:18:45
                                   This is referring to a very specific part of the reporting - Sal CMSU - 9/30 08:19:15
                                        because it does not exist in the statute - gmmm98 MU - 9/30 08:20:25
                                             The urgent request form would have been rejected - Sal CMSU - 9/30 08:22:28
                                                  "an extra-legislative rule added by the executive branch - gmmm98 MU - 9/30 08:32:32
                                                       No ... you can't read (nm) - Sal CMSU - 9/30 08:51:06
                              OMG... somebody changed FORM? - mizzoumurfkc KC - 9/30 08:16:49
                                   Does that mean anything is a lie? - Ace AU - 9/30 08:20:22
                                        Nope! (nm) - mizzoumurfkc KC - 9/30 08:21:43
                                   Yes, they did - Sal CMSU - 9/30 08:17:18
               LOL - Ace AU - 9/30 07:53:11
                    In your opinion but i guess you’re the king now - tcat KC - 9/30 07:56:35
                         What if he's put under oath? - Toger STL - 9/30 08:03:34
                              I agree, but I want all of them under oath. (nm) - tcat KC - 9/30 09:25:43
               So your saying that rumors have always been allowed - tcat KC - 9/30 07:52:16
                    i didn't look at the legislative history since nixon - gmmm98 MU - 9/30 08:09:02
                         lol you are stuck on an odd talking point - Sal CMSU - 9/30 08:16:39




©2025 Fanboards L.L.C. — Our Privacy Policy   About Tigerboard