At 9:09am, you commiserated with Kimberly GG about how your perceived opponents “won’t actually spend any time to acknowledge the FOIA responses.” You observed that they “just feint, dance, feint, dance and back up” calling them a “Stall operation,” and “thugs.”
At 9:33am, (and in response to my suggestion that it’s impossible to “acknowledge” something one hasn’t seen, and that you are acting as though you’ve seen something others have not), you propounded that you:
“never expected the Executive Branch to deploy a full spread of stalls and point-blank refusals to lawful information requests. The failure to comply anywhere close to fully with the FOIA requests dramatically increases legitimate public concern for the veracity of disavowals that were issued. Disavowals which have now evidently been debunked.”When I observed a second time that you are acting as though you know what is in the documents while others do not, at 11:48am, for the first time you admit that you are speaking of documents that Judicial Watch received as a result of a FOIA request. I thought that the government was refusing those requests, but let’s not digress.
All morning I thought that you were referring to Jerome Corsi’s FOIA request, of which nothing is known. No matter, apparently you couldn’t be bothered to be more specific. Lost upon you is the notion that maybe this “thug dancer stall-operation” is thugging, and dancing, and stalling, BECAUSE THEY DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
All morning, you were in possession (defined as “having access to”) the documents you accused others of avoiding, yet you didn’t lift a finger to provide them. Absence of evidence, of course, being central to your argument that something is being hidden.
Let me repeat, for effect: you held the documents close to your vest, yet you argued that something sinister is afoot because they are not being acknowledged.
So here we are, afternoon in the Midwest. We now know that somewhere in the Judicial Watch documents is evidence of some amorphous “disavowals” that “have now evidently been debunked.” Care to point them out?
I must admit, asking folks on your side to cite to particulars when you present a document most often is a request ignored (witness texastoo’s hurried evacuation of this thread when asked about his DOT memo), but I’ll continue trying. Personally, I think that making a point and then moving backwards isn’t very effective, but if that’s the route you choose, be my guest. Let’s see some of that evidence (this morning: suppressed/this afternoon: released) that you claim is being avoided.
I'm pinging some others to this comment, thinking that they might see something I've missed, or can find a better way to explain to you that you're being transparent.
Don't you know? It's not the NAU that's the conspiracy. It's the NAU conspiracy theorists that are working for the government.
It was all laid down in a documentary this past Wednesday.
The Commerce Dept refused to hand over about some 80% of the requested documents. So its clearly not a digression. And the documentary non-performance should not have been news to you, if you had bothered reading anything, which you haven't been doing...as evidenced by your attempted "summary" of my contributions proves. Thus proving my point about you guys feinting without actually acknowledging the documents.
You are thugs.
As for your pathetic last gasping argument you then demand proof from me, when you still haven't read anything (still further confirming my point):
...somewhere in the Judicial Watch documents is evidence of some amorphous “disavowals” that “have now evidently been debunked.” Care to point them out?Care to read Robert A. Pastor's contribution to the S.P.P.? It's there right in black and white. His CFR Task Force "Toward a North American Community" which discusses how to evade and undermine U.S. sovereignty and defacto implement the North American Union has been incorporated into the SPP agenda. Surprise. A smoking gun right under your nose. It's hardly the only one, but it is likely dispositive.
Especially since it is Robert Paster's disengenuous talking points issued in the recent disavowals sniffing at the supposed "myths" against of the SPP...on behalf of the Commerce Dept.
Gee, how did they...and he... get there???
Of course, you will call it all a coincidence...