Impeachment

[Joe Fan]

(1) Why do you suppose the purported "whistle blower" neglected to mention this?
and
(2) Did he have a legal duty to make this disclosure? Possibly (see 2d tweet)

 

[Horn6721]

If No One is above the law why are Dems and Haters wanting no investigation of Biden?

 

[Joe Fan]

Aren't you the same people who said he
-- killed his own dog?
-- killed a woman?
-- cheated on his taxes?
-- made false SEC filings?
-- outsourced US jobs?

 

[Mr. Deez]

First and foremost, I'm insulted by the accusation that I watch Maddow. If you do not take that back I'll be forced to escalate.

On the court packing you know more about this district than I do. I'm probably colored by JoeFans consistent boasting about packing the court and the travesty of what McConnell did to Garland.

I don't think you watch Maddow, but you went with a Maddowian point.

That was a different time, my friend. Tribalism wasn't as rampant in Congress nor encouaged in the courts.

The point of having unelected judges is not having to worry about this. And again, most of the district judges are Democrats. They aren't going to screw with Congress. They're going to help them out.

And what do you expect the Administration to do? Do you think they would just voluntarily give Schiff whatever he wants regardless of how overbroad or how badly it might violate privilege? They won't, and it's hard to blame them. From a political standpoint, it's a lot easier to defy a baldly partisan Adam Schiff than an Article III federal judge.

Eric Holder was held in contempt. What were the ramifications?

A congressional contempt motion isn't the same as a judicially-enforced subpoena. They should have taken Holder to court when it mattered.

 

[LongestHorn]

GORDON SONDLAND, 8/9/19: “I think potus really wants the deliverable”

GORDON SONDLAND, 9/9/19: “The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind.”

The time in between is when WH/DOJ learn about the Whistleblower.

 

[mchammer]

No charges against him...because it is unlawful to indict a sitting POTUS. I think Cornyn accidentally hit "submit" too early.

Me thinks Cornyn should have waited for more shoes to drop (like the text messages) before sticking his neck out for Trump.

This is your BS again. The special prosecutor can submit charges. Mueller was free to do that. Why do you persist in lying to the board?

 

[Seattle Husker]

You left out the most important lines in the article. I wonder why. You'd make a fine addition to the House of Reps.

""Sondland replied nearly five hours later that he believed Taylor was "incorrect about President Trump's intentions."

"The president has been crystal clear no quid pro quo's of any kind. The president is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign. I suggest we stop the back and forth by text," Sondland said."

Of course he did, while telling Taylor to stop documenting the conversations.

 

[Seattle Husker]

This is your BS again. The special prosecutor can submit charges. Mueller was free to do that. Why do you persist in lying to the board?

Mueller said the exact opposite. It was Barr that said he could albeit the DOJ office that gave clear guidance that a sitting POTUS cannot be indicted has not changed their interpretation. Mueller cited the specific policy. Barr has the power to change that guidance. He could have done so the moment he learned Mueller leaned on that policy. Rather than change it he simply publicly said Mueller could file charges, against his own departments longstanding policy.

Mueller is a by the book law enforcement officer.

 

[Garmel]

Of course he did, while telling Taylor to stop documenting the conversations.

Nice spin there, bud. Doesn't change the facts that I pointed out. You were deliberately deceptive.

 

[LongestHorn]

I suggest we stop the back and forth by text," Sondland said."

haha

 

[Seattle Husker]

Nice spin there, bud. Doesn't change the facts that I pointed out. You were deliberately deceptive.

Spin? That's fact. It's in the transcripts. Now is the time you'd typically throw a poop emoji and scream Fake News.

 

[LongestHorn]

Spin? That's fact. It's in the transcripts. Now is the time you'd typically throw a poop emoji and scream Fake News.

 

[Garmel]

haha

Oh I forgot. That was part of the conspiracy.

 

[LongestHorn]

So predictable!

 

[Garmel]

Spin? That's fact. It's in the transcripts. Now is the time you'd typically throw a poop emoji and scream Fake News.

Doesn't change the fact that you deliberately left out some of the most important lines in the article.

 

[Seattle Husker]

So predictable!

Clearly Garmel has never been in a situation where one is concerned about documenting their viewpoints in corporate email, instant messaging or company owned phones, all of which are discoverable. Whenever my former boss (C-Suite level) wanted to share information that they knew wasn't supposed to be shared they'd have me give them a call. A few conversations that started in IM were moved to voice all to avoid potential discovery of the conversation. Working in HR Systems you know that if a company has a desire to terminate you everything you've ever sent on company hardware/apps suddenly comes to light. Voice conversations remain the best way to share information without fear of the conversation being documented, unless you are a high level bureaucrat which then assume all conversations are monitored.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Doesn't change the fact that you deliberately left out some of the most important lines in the article.

Wait, you're telling me I have a bias? Who knew! Are you willing to admit your own bias, that you skipped over the damning info and concerns by Taylor to focus only on the last comment and completely ignored the simultaneous "let's take this out of text" comment?

 

[Garmel]

Clearly Garmel has never been in a situation where one is concerned about documenting their viewpoints in corporate email, instant messaging or company owned phones, all of which are discoverable. Whenever my former boss (C-Suite level) wanted to share information that they knew wasn't supposed to be shared they'd have me give them a call. A few conversations that started in IM were moved to voice all to avoid potential discovery of the conversation. Working in HR Systems you know that if a company has a desire to terminate you everything you've ever sent on company hardware/apps suddenly comes to light. Voice conversations remain the best way to share information without fear of the conversation being documented, unless you are a high level bureaucrat which then assume all conversations are monitored.

Still doesn't change the fact that you were deceptive.

 

[Garmel]

Wait, you're telling me I have a bias? Who knew! Are you willing to admit your own bias, that you skipped over the damning info and concerns by Taylor to focus only on the last comment and completely ignored the simultaneous "let's take this out of text" comment?

Dude, I caught you red-handed trying to change an article that showed a semblance of balance to an article that looks extremely bad on Trump. Now you're trying to turn it around on me. After debating with you the last few years the deception doesn't surprise me in any way.

 

[mchammer]

Mueller said the exact opposite. It was Barr that said he could albeit the DOJ office that gave clear guidance that a sitting POTUS cannot be indicted has not changed their interpretation. Mueller cited the specific policy. Barr has the power to change that guidance. He could have done so the moment he learned Mueller leaned on that policy. Rather than change it he simply publicly said Mueller could file charges, against his own departments longstanding policy.

Mueller is a by the book law enforcement officer.

Mueller said it to create cover for the fact that his team had no charges to make.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Dude, I caught you red-handed trying to change an article

What did I change? I linked the article from a reputable source and posted quotes I felt were pertinent.

Please show me exactly what I changed.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Mueller said it to create cover for the fact that his team had no charges to make.

In Part 1, yes. Part 2 of the report was a different story entirely. He stated the investigation started with the knowledge they couldn't indict so did not make that determination but rather gathere the facts, 10 separate items (4 are serious) about obstruction of justice.

 

[mchammer]

In Part 1, yes. Part 2 of the report was a different story entirely. He stated the investigation started with the knowledge they couldn't indict so did not make that determination but rather gathere the facts, 10 separate items (4 are serious) about obstruction of justice.

TDS. Mueller and his team had a collection of stories that was unindictable.

 

[Seattle Husker]

TDS. Mueller and his team had a collection of stories that was unindictable.

That's an opinion. Of course, neither of us have a JD.

 

[I35]

Wait, you're telling me I have a bias? Who knew! Are you willing to admit your own bias, that you skipped over the damning info and concerns by Taylor to focus only on the last comment and completely ignored the simultaneous "let's take this out of text" comment?

Actually he’s telling you that you’re dishonest. But everyone already knows this...... but maybe Longesthorn.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[nashhorn]

This is getting really good.

 

[I35]

This impeachment has nothing to do with a phone call with another leader. This is about impeaching President Trump because the Dems and their media can’t control him like they have all the other Republican Presidents.

 

[mchammer]

SH,

Tucker is mocking you:

 

[Seattle Husker]

Actually he’s telling you that you’re dishonest. But everyone already knows this...... but maybe Longesthorn.

Biased is what your looking for but then y'all look the opposite direction when JoeFan presents his bias because you agree with it.