The US Department of Justice is out of control!

Oh, it's not my asserted ignorance that is amusing me, friend.

I do think insults and declarations of clairvoyance mistaken for cogent counter-arguments to be pretty amusing, though.

Any other insults you'd like to direct at me? I'm all ears! Well, not entirely ears. I am a man of several parts, actually. And I don't read with my ears, in any event.

love in the air,
second to none
look here is a glock,
who ordered the handgun?

I do think insults and declarations of clairvoyance mistaken for cogent counter-arguments to be pretty amusing, though.

An accusation of ignorance is not an insult, especially if the accused has a long track record of ignorance and shows it again right at this opportunity. Want examples? Here are some:

MSNBC reported about the hearing of the oversight committee. Important about this report was not what Chris Hayes had to say but what happened during that hearing and how AG Bondi dealt with the questions. All that was in the report.

You didn't react to any of Pam Bondis pseudo-answers and deflections. Instead you preferred to rail about "the crack reportage of MSNBC, which has such a stellar track record for ferreting out the crucial stories of the day!". Which incidentally are exactly the same deflection tactics that Bondi displayed.

Then @Cedur216 specifically asked you about Trump going after his opponents with these proceedings, something btw that Trump announced publicly and often enough that he would do. Your reaction? Nothing what could be considered an honest answer, instead another attempt at derailing.

If you don't consider your behaviour ignorance (at least ignorance, if not more), well, not a big surprise here. Who is ignorant rarely admits to being ignorant. However, your answers are on full display here so hiding behind your usual verbal slime is not going to impress a lot of people.

@Katzenschinken declares to us, in #13, that "An accusation of ignorance is not an insult...."

Oh. My mistake.

Nevertheless, for those who are married or in another significant relationship, it might not be wise for them to call their spouses or significant others "ignorant" if they wish to live in pleasant harmony.

Of course, I could be wrong. Perhaps some will view it as "constructive criticism" ! Readers will have to make up their own minds, I guess, based upon their own life experience.

Admitting one's ignorance is the first step in acquiring knowledge.
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.

Out of curiosity, @wowbagge , is it "ignorant" to debate by using insult rather than by responding substantively to arguments actually made?

For example, if I pointed out that criminal juries don't work for Trump, and make their own decisions in America, would it be "ignorant" to respond by insulting me rather than offering an accurate factual analysis of criminal procedure and safeguards in America?

Do you think criminal indictments typically include the charge "Trump thinks he's icky" ? If so, what criminal statute would make being thought "icky" by Trump a crime, do you think?

Is it possible that things are a bit more complicated than fashionable declarations of galloping "autocracy" would suggest?

@Gitananda said in #1:

I still want to know if Tom Homan paid taxes on the $50,000. that undercover FBI agents
gave him on video in a paper bag. The IRS has tormented people for far less than that.
However, AG Pam Bondi doesn't think that Congress has the right to ask any questions
as part of their oversight responsibilities.

what do you think of the responses to the lack of oversight being allowed ? @Gitananda & of the responses here so far' ?

Look who's defending Trump....Flapsy LOL@Noflaps said in #14:

@Katzenschinken declares to us, in #13, that "An accusation of ignorance is not an insult...."

Oh. My mistake.

Nevertheless, for those who are married or in another significant relationship, it might not be wise for them to call their spouses or significant others "ignorant" if they wish to live in pleasant harmony.

Of course, I could be wrong. Perhaps some will view it as "constructive criticism" ! Readers will have to make up their own minds, I guess, based upon their own life experience.

After reading @Katzenschinken's post, I have to agree, this is complete verbal slime by Flapadoodle. Par for the course, for a Trump supporter

@Noflaps said in #7:

The United States is not remotely slipping into autocracy.

I find contrary suggestions amusing if they had not by now been repeated ad nauseum.
Yeah only small things like illegally deploying the military to cities he deems political enemies, and saying to use US cities as 'training grounds' for the military - allowing lethal force to be used.

If you find where MSNBC has altered the video of the hearing then let us know right away.
You can watch it on CSPAN without MSNBC commentary and then explain if this is how you think
an Attorney General should respond to questions from a Congressional committee with
oversight responsibilities. At least try to defend her performance because your 'answer'
so far is a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

@Noflaps said in #5:

Oh, good! Another political post -- this time apparently featuring the crack reportage of MSNBC, which has such a stellar track record for ferreting out the crucial stories of the day!

I wish I didn't have to give the spaniel yet another bath; I'd otherwise be sure to watch with admiration if not outright awe!

What wonderful insights have they offered about the Virginia AG's race, I wonder? Have you seen any, @ThunderClap?

Or is that a matter best not covered in detail.
@Noflaps said in #5:
#5
Oh, good! Another political post -- this time apparently