Why would he? He accomplished all he wanted to – i.e., showing the MAGAt base what a strong, manly defender of Trump he is – by sending his letter. Willis’ response is irrelevant to him and them.
Another error, used twice, in the otherwise magnificent letter is this:
Your letter burdens the deliberate process privilege.
That should be deliberative process.
That feels like Microsoft Word’s autocorrect being a melon farmer.
In case anyone wants to read the letter from Jordan that sparked this brilliant reply, here it is:
(I apologize if someone has already posted this link. I searched and didn’t find it.)
She should have appended a tl;dr. Something like this:
tl;dr Your “Congressional oversight” violates several long-established legal precedents. Thus we will not be complying with the requests for information or documents, nor will we be modifying the prosecution of the former President.
tl;dr to the tl;dr Get lost, you overweening toad.
Thanks for that, @commasense . I looked myself, but came up empty handed. Glad you could find it; it’s quite a read.
Here’s the letter again:
It says that Jordan wants to know if any “federal dollars” have been “expended” investigating Trump. There is enough to criticize in the letter without the canard about a rape prosecution funding cut. Willis never says Jordan is trying to cut rape prosecution funding, only that that’s what the federal funds are used for, and not for the Trump case.
I suppose the courts will have to rule on whether Jordan can investigate Willis.
The ABC News article @rockingchair posted, to which you were responding, contained a link to the press release Jordan’s office issued, which in turn contained a link to the letter.
Ah. Guess I didn’t look far enough then. Still, thanks again for the link to Jordan’s letter. It adds context to Willis’s letter.
And the bit about “fold it until it’s all sharp corners”…
“Fold it five ways and put it where the sun don’t shine”?
The tldr version.
Good day, chairman Jordan,
Congress has no oversight of state matters.
Bless your heart,
Attorney general Willis
Will we ever hear a ruling on the meadows case? It has been a week.
Correct, I go back away though not quite to WWII.
“You’re not the boss of me now, and you’re not so big.”
Special grand jury suggested Lindsay graham! Dang it, I wonder why they didn’t have him on. Per cnn. The special grand jury had 39 names, 19 were charged.
Special grand jury also had Perdue and loeffler recommended for charges. At the time those 2 were the ga senators.
I think probably because it was going to be difficult to pierce the speech and debate clause that gives senators protection against prosecution.
Let’s wait and see what Jack Smith does in the federal case.
The two that baffle me that Willis refrained from charging are Michael Flynn and Boris Epshteyn. But I don’t think we’ve heard the last of them. Just maybe not in this case.
Could be that the evidence for their interference specifically in the Georgia process wasn’t strong enough to hold up in court. Says nothing about their guilt in other shenanigans.
Certainly true.
From what I’m hearing sec. of state and graham have different reads on the conversations. Graham says he just wanted info for the senate race, sos says he heard that graham wanted him to possibly toss out votes.
Some of those named in the special jury could be cooperating and giving evidence.
Jack smith could have better luck.
Epshteyn was named in Jack Smith’s election interference case against Trump as a co-conspirator, so I don’t think we’ve heard the last of him for sure. He’s also dealing with an ethics complaint in New York:
More details: