More GOP Hypocrisy

[zappasguitar]

Do as they SAY, not as they DO!


Fox Anchor Calls Grand Juries ‘Undemocratic’ Just After Calling For One For Hillary Clinton


Conservatives are in panic-mode over the news that special counsel Robert Mueller has impaneled a new grand jury and the probe has expanded into looking into possible financial crimes by individuals close to Donald Trump. Defenders of the amateurish president are left flailing as they repeatedly bring up Hillary Clinton in order to somehow justify any possible collusion between the Trump campaign and a hostile foreign government. That’s exactly what Fox News anchor Gregg Jarrett, a former defense attorney, did but in an even more unusual manner.

On Thursday, Jarrett called grand juries an “undemocratic farce” but that was just one day after writing an op-ed asking why a grand jury had not been impaneled for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information, The Hill reports.

Jarrett was weighing in on Mueller’s decision to impanel a grand jury in the investigation into Russia’s interference in last year’s presidential election.

“There’s only one other nation in the world other than the U.S. that employs a grand jury — it’s Liberia,” Jarrett said Thursday on “Hannity.”

“And there’s a reason why, because everybody now realizes that grand juries are an undemocratic farce,” he said.

“The defense is never there to cross-examine witnesses and to challenge the evidence. Prosecutors spoon-feed only incriminating evidence and nothing exculpatory. It is as undemocratic as you can get, it is the antithesis of justice,” he continued.

“And it’s even worse here because Robert Mueller impaneled a Washington, D.C., grand jury, where Donald Trump got a mere 11,000 votes compared to Hillary Clinton’s 260,000 votes. I daresay there is probably not a single person on that grand jury that likes Donald Trump. So it is doubly unfair,” Jarrett concluded.

Jarrett’s comments came one day after he penned an op-ed on FoxNews.com in which he called on Mueller to also investigate Hillary Clinton.

“There is something fundamentally unfair when a special counsel is appointed to investigate the winner of a presidential contest, but not the loser,” Jarrett wrote.

“There is much to investigate. Did Comey usurp the authority of the Attorney General in terminating the Clinton email investigation? How could downloading more than a hundred classified documents onto Clinton’s private and unsecured email server not constitute crimes under the Espionage Act? Why were five people given immunity while others invoked the Fifth Amendment, yet no grand jury was impaneled?” Jarrett asked.

It’s almost as if conservatives don’t realize that Hillary Clinton is not the President. Hey, I know, maybe investigate the 2012 attack in Benghazi just one more time; they might find something after the eleventy hundredth probe. Hillary Clinton testified during Benghazi committee hearing for 11 long hours and didn’t break a sweat, by the way.

http://deepstatenation.com/2017/08/...-one-for-hillary-clinton/?utm_source=facebook

 

[Cancel 2018.2]

Where is the hypocrisy? He merely ASKED why one wasn't impaneled for her.

Do you ever make an honest thread? I have yet to see one.

And you whining about hypocrisy............ I mean really? There is not a day goes by where you are not a hypocrite.

 

[zappasguitar]

Where is the hypocrisy? He merely ASKED why one wasn't impaneled for her.

Do you ever make an honest thread? I have yet to see one.

And you whining about hypocrisy............ I mean really? There is not a day goes by where you are not a hypocrite.

Its right there at the top of the post:

Fox Anchor Calls Grand Juries ‘Undemocratic’ Just After Calling For One For Hillary Clinton

 

[Cancel 2018.2]

Its right there at the top of the post:

Fox Anchor Calls Grand Juries ‘Undemocratic’ Just After Calling For One For Hillary Clinton

Maybe this is really not one of your dishonest threads, you're actually too stupid to read the actual words he said and instead just blindly believe anything your left wing sources tell you.

"There is much to investigate. Did Comey usurp the authority of the Attorney General in terminating the Clinton email investigation? How could downloading more than a hundred classified documents onto Clinton’s private and unsecured email server not constitute crimes under the Espionage Act? Why were five people given immunity while others invoked the Fifth Amendment, yet no grand jury was impaneled?" Jarrett asked.

He ASKED, why she did not get impaneled and now there is one. He did not say she should get one, nor did he call for one for her. He is pointing out hypocrisy you dumb dumb.

 

[Cancel 2018.2]

Btw, when are you going to accept my debate challenge?

 

[Dale]

Maybe this is really not one of your dishonest threads, you're actually too stupid to read the actual words he said and instead just blindly believe anything your left wing sources tell you.

"There is much to investigate. Did Comey usurp the authority of the Attorney General in terminating the Clinton email investigation? How could downloading more than a hundred classified documents onto Clinton’s private and unsecured email server not constitute crimes under the Espionage Act? Why were five people given immunity while others invoked the Fifth Amendment, yet no grand jury was impaneled?" Jarrett asked.

He ASKED, why she did not get impaneled and now there is one. He did not say she should get one, nor did he call for one for her. He is pointing out hypocrisy you dumb dumb.

Agreed.

I'm not seeing any hypocrisy here either. All this alleged hypocrite did was ask why a grand jury was not impaneled as it relates to the Clinton investigation as well. So if anything - he was pointing out hypocrisy - not partaking in it.

Very stupid thread.

 

[Cancel 2018.2]

Agreed.

I'm not seeing any hypocrisy here either. All this alleged hypocrite did was ask why a grand jury was not impaneled as it relates to the Clinton investigation as well. So if anything - he was pointing out hypocrisy - not partaking in it.

Very stupid thread.

Well, it is a Zappas thread.

 

[zappasguitar]

Maybe this is really not one of your dishonest threads, you're actually too stupid to read the actual words he said and instead just blindly believe anything your left wing sources tell you.

"There is much to investigate. Did Comey usurp the authority of the Attorney General in terminating the Clinton email investigation? How could downloading more than a hundred classified documents onto Clinton’s private and unsecured email server not constitute crimes under the Espionage Act? Why were five people given immunity while others invoked the Fifth Amendment, yet no grand jury was impaneled?" Jarrett asked.

He ASKED, why she did not get impaneled and now there is one. He did not say she should get one, nor did he call for one for her. He is pointing out hypocrisy you dumb dumb.

All this time I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt, but really are dumb as a stump, aren't ya Chachi?

It's right there in the first two paragraphs:

Yesterday, when Jarrett penned an op-ed asking why a grand jury had not been impaneled for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information, he didn't consider a Grand Jury "undemocratic".

NOW all of a sudden, Jarrett believes Grand Juries are an “undemocratic farce”...WHY?

What's different?

 

[Dale]

All this time I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt, but really are dumb as a stump, aren't ya Chachi?

It's right there in the first two paragraphs:

Yesterday, when Jarrett penned an op-ed asking why a grand jury had not been impaneled for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information, he didn't consider a Grand Jury "undemocratic".

NOW all of a sudden, he feels they are...WHY?

What's different?

Why do you say Garret didn't consider grand juries undemocratic during his op ed?

He never said that. All he did was question as to why one was not impaneled during the Clinton investigation. He never said he believed they were democratic. You're just making stuff up as if he had said them.

 

[Cancel 2018.2]

Why do you say Garret didn't consider grand juriesundemocratic during his op ed?

He never said that. All he did was question as to why one was not impaneled during the Clinton investigation. He never said he believed they were democratic. You're just making stuff up as if he had said them.

Thanks for saving me the work of explaining something so simple to a simpleton.

 

[zappasguitar]

Why do you say Garret didn't consider grand juries undemocratic during his op ed?

He never said that. All he did was question as to why one was not impaneled during the Clinton investigation. He never said he believed they were democratic. You're just making stuff up as if he had said them.

If he believe grand juries really are "undemocratic farces", then why would he question why one wasn't impaneled during the Clinton investigation?

Would that not also be an "undemocratic farce"?

 

[zappasguitar]

Thanks for saving me the work of explaining something so simple to a simpleton.

That's right, run away like you always do when you're cornered.

 

[Cancel 2018.2]

If he believe grand juries really are "undemocratic farces", then why would he question why one wasn't impaneled during the Clinton investigation?

Would that not also be an "undemocratic farce"?

Once again, for the galacticly retarded, TO POINT OUT HYPOCRISY.

Need me to say it again or are you going to be a pussy and accuse me of running away when I actually said to another posting, thanks for saving me the trouble of saying what you said, IOW, I didn't run away, I thanked another poster for saying what I would have said, so no need to REPEAT what he said you lying fat slob.

 

[zappasguitar]

Why do you say Garret didn't consider grand juries undemocratic during his op ed?

He never said that. All he did was question as to why one was not impaneled during the Clinton investigation. He never said he believed they were democratic. You're just making stuff up as if he had said them.

Except he DID say just that.

Jarrett stated quite clearly during the Hannity show last night that he believes grand juries are an “undemocratic farce”.

 

[Dale]

If he believe grand juries really are "undemocratic farces", then why would he question why one wasn't impaneled during the Clinton investigation?

Would that not also be an "undemocratic farce"?

Because, and like I said, he was likely pointing out the hypocrisy of it - that grand juries were impaneled in this investigation yet weren't during the Clinton investigation. He was highlighting a double standard. That doesn't mean he was calling them democratic in one instance yet undemocratic in the other. That's a conclusion you have no reasonable basis to assume.

This is not the first grand jury to be impaneled during the Trump investigation. According to reports Mueller has already used at least one other.

 

[Dale]

Except he DID say just that.

Jarrett stated quite clearly during the Hannity show last night that he believes grand juries are an “undemocratic farce”.

You seem to be having trouble understanding my comments.

I know he said grand juries were undemocratic. That's not what I was disputing.

What I was disputing is that he ever said grand juries weren't undemocratic. You have provided nothing here to suggest that he did.

 

[zappasguitar]

You seem to be having trouble understanding my comments.

I know he said grand juries were undemocratic. That's not what I was disputing.

What I was disputing is that he ever said grand juries weren't undemocratic. You have provided nothing here to suggest that he did.

Why would he want one impaneled to investigate Hillary if he truly believes they are an undemocratic farce?

 

[Dale]

Why would he want one impaneled to investigate Hillary if he truly believes they are an undemocratic farce?

Asking why one wasn't impaneled during the Clinton investigation seems like a very reasonable question to me.

Grand Juries are usually impaneled during investigations - unless you are a Clinton of course - who get to play by a different set of rules. So if I had to speculate, I would suggest that's why he was asking. He was attempting to highlight the double standard in which these two individuals were being investigated - one of them being handled with kid gloves while the other has had multiple grand juries impaneled to pursue them.

Either way - I don't see any hypocrisy here on Garret's part. Just because he asked why no grand jury was impaneled during the Clinton Investigation that does not mean he considered them democratic - which would be absurd anyway as most people understand that grand juries are not a fair process and are there mostly just to serve the prosecutor's needs. Hell, defensive lawyers cannot even attend.

The expression that a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich is popular among lawyers for a reason (which I believe Garret is).

 

[Cancel 2018.2]

Why would he want one impaneled to investigate Hillary if he truly believes they are an undemocratic farce?

Cite where he said he "wanted" a grand jury impaneled to investigate Hillary.

 

[NOVA]

Do as they SAY, not as they DO!


Fox Anchor Calls Grand Juries ‘Undemocratic’ Just After Calling For One For Hillary Clinton


Conservatives are in panic-mode over the news that special counsel Robert Mueller has impaneled a new grand jury and the probe has expanded into looking into possible financial crimes by individuals close to Donald Trump. Defenders of the amateurish president are left flailing as they repeatedly bring up Hillary Clinton in order to somehow justify any possible collusion between the Trump campaign and a hostile foreign government. That’s exactly what Fox News anchor Gregg Jarrett, a former defense attorney, did but in an even more unusual manner.

On Thursday, Jarrett called grand juries an “undemocratic farce” but that was just one day after writing an op-ed asking why a grand jury had not been impaneled for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information, The Hill reports.

Jarrett was weighing in on Mueller’s decision to impanel a grand jury in the investigation into Russia’s interference in last year’s presidential election.

“There’s only one other nation in the world other than the U.S. that employs a grand jury — it’s Liberia,” Jarrett said Thursday on “Hannity.”

“And there’s a reason why, because everybody now realizes that grand juries are an undemocratic farce,” he said.

“The defense is never there to cross-examine witnesses and to challenge the evidence. Prosecutors spoon-feed only incriminating evidence and nothing exculpatory. It is as undemocratic as you can get, it is the antithesis of justice,” he continued.

“And it’s even worse here because Robert Mueller impaneled a Washington, D.C., grand jury, where Donald Trump got a mere 11,000 votes compared to Hillary Clinton’s 260,000 votes. I daresay there is probably not a single person on that grand jury that likes Donald Trump. So it is doubly unfair,” Jarrett concluded.

Jarrett’s comments came one day after he penned an op-ed on FoxNews.com in which he called on Mueller to also investigate Hillary Clinton.

“There is something fundamentally unfair when a special counsel is appointed to investigate the winner of a presidential contest, but not the loser,” Jarrett wrote.

“There is much to investigate. Did Comey usurp the authority of the Attorney General in terminating the Clinton email investigation? How could downloading more than a hundred classified documents onto Clinton’s private and unsecured email server not constitute crimes under the Espionage Act? Why were five people given immunity while others invoked the Fifth Amendment, yet no grand jury was impaneled?” Jarrett asked.

It’s almost as if conservatives don’t realize that Hillary Clinton is not the President. Hey, I know, maybe investigate the 2012 attack in Benghazi just one more time; they might find something after the eleventy hundredth probe. Hillary Clinton testified during Benghazi committee hearing for 11 long hours and didn’t break a sweat, by the way.

http://deepstatenation.com/2017/08/...-one-for-hillary-clinton/?utm_source=facebook

I don't see what the fuck you're whimpering about....


Grand Juries are kind of an undemocratic farce and

why hasn't one been impaneled for Hillary ?

one idea has nothing do with the other...and wtf has Hillary not being president got to
do with anything.....are you that stupid that you think grand juries are only for
presidents ?