The Sham Impeachment Inquiry & Whistleblower Saga: A Race to Get Ahead of the OIG

[B-Man]

Rand Paul: More Democrats to oppose impeachment, rips Schiff on phone logs. 

 

“Portraying the removal drive against President Trump as ‘purely partisan,’ Sen. Rand Paul believes more Democrats will oppose impeachment in the House vote next week, and at least two Democratic senators may vote against conviction.”

 

 

And, humiliatingly: Top 2020 stories: Jussie Smollett hoax, Epstein death eclipsed impeachment. “Even with most of the media promoting their case against President Trump, Democrats still failed to make impeachment the top story in 2020.”

 

 

 

 

.

[Koko78]

13 hours ago, Rob's House said:

 

They'd never throw Hillary under the bus like that.

 

...and expect to survive the suicide attempt.

[Buffalo_Gal]

Michael Atkinson, the current IG of the Intelligence Agency that turned over the "whistleblower" complaint against Trump for the Ukraine call, was the general counsel for the FBI National Security Division in 2016 through late 2017. 
 

 

[Uncle Joe]

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

.

[Koko78]

2 hours ago, Hedge said:

 

 

 

Heh, like they'll have a majority in the House anytime in the near future.

[Buffalo_Gal]

 

[row_33]

so the second whistleblower neve existed?

 

and what happened to the first one?

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Koko78]

30 minutes ago, row_33 said:

so the second whistleblower neve existed?

 

and what happened to the first one?

 

The second whistleblower was too busy to testify, as they were putting a second door in their home due to trauma suffered from Brett Kavanaugh's attempted rape 45 years ago.

 

The first one, much like Epstein, did not kill themselves.

[Taro T]

46 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

 

To not follow up on it, probably would have been dereliction of duty.  To use it as a basis for multiple FISA warrants, certainly seems to be a far grosser dereliction of duty; especially as we now know that they had proof it was bogus by the time they requested the 1st renewal at the latest, and likely much sooner than that.

[billsfan89]

17 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

That's not illegal.  

 

Stupid and childish, but not illegal.  

 

It literally is illegal. Incompetence doesn't absolve you of a crime. 

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, billsfan89 said:

 

It literally is illegal. Incompetence doesn't absolve you of a crime. 

 

The AG has the authority under law to terminate a Special Counsel for cause, and it is not illegal for the President to ask the AG to fire a Special Counsel.  CFR 28 VI 600.7(d).

 

No matter how much you want to pretend it's illegal, it literally isn't.  You're making up a federal regulation that doesn't exist.

[billsfan89]

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

The AG has the authority under law to terminate a Special Counsel for cause, and it is not illegal for the President to ask the AG to fire a Special Counsel.  CFR 28 VI 600.7(d).

 

No matter how much you want to pretend it's illegal, it literally isn't.  You're making up a federal regulation that doesn't exist.

 

If you are doing something you have authority to do under the guise of obstructing an investigation into yourself is still obstruction of justice regardless of wither or not you have the authority to do so. Laws work in context. You are being purposefully dense in your interpretation of the letter and intent of a law and how context works in terms of determining crimes. Selling stocks is not illegal but it is the context as to when and why you sell or buy stocks that determines wither or not insider trading has occurred. 

[row_33]

Just now, billsfan89 said:

 

If you are doing something you have authority to do under the guise of obstructing an investigation into yourself is still obstruction of justice regardless of wither or not you have the authority to do so. Laws work in context. You are being purposefully dense in your interpretation of the letter and intent of a law and how context works in terms of determining crimes. Selling stocks is not illegal but it is the context as to when and why you sell or buy stocks that determines wither or not insider trading has occurred. 

 

the President can fire at will

 

has NOTHING to do with the rest of your whining there

 

it can be a very UNWISE decision to do so, that's about the only restraint

 

 

gee, if there was only a precedent to refer to, so that lazy people could look it up.... (hint Archibald Cox and the Saturday Night Massacre...)

 

 

[billsfan89]

Just now, row_33 said:

 

the President can fire at will

 

has NOTHING to do with the rest of your whining there

 

it can be a very UNWISE decision to do so, that's about the only restraint

 

 

 

OK so you don't see any issue with firing someone investigating you? Having the authority to do so doesn't make it legal or ethical. This is working backwards from your conclusion and then looking to an echo chamber to justify rather dense and bad framing

[row_33]

Just now, billsfan89 said:

 

OK so you don't see any issue with firing someone investigating you? Having the authority to do so doesn't make it legal or ethical. This is working backwards from your conclusion and then looking to an echo chamber to justify rather dense and bad framing

 

not disagreeing there.... but that's how it is

 

deal with it!

 

and see my comment added after your response.

 

[Gary M]

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 minute ago, billsfan89 said:

 

OK so you don't see any issue with firing someone investigating you? Having the authority to do so doesn't make it legal or ethical. This is working backwards from your conclusion and then looking to an echo chamber to justify rather dense and bad framing

What!? 

[row_33]

billsfan89 is going to learn that life is unfair and doesn't make sense (as he/she dictates it be)

 

that's cute and sweet

 

oh wait, billsfan89 is the first to discover this crazy part of the Law of the Land.... ignore that it's been fought over since the late 1700s and written on about 125,000 times and Nixon did it and it hurt him big-time

 

[GG]

9 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

If you are doing something you have authority to do under the guise of obstructing an investigation into yourself is still obstruction of justice regardless of wither or not you have the authority to do so. Laws work in context. You are being purposefully dense in your interpretation of the letter and intent of a law and how context works in terms of determining crimes. Selling stocks is not illegal but it is the context as to when and why you sell or buy stocks that determines wither or not insider trading has occurred. 

Is that why Cuomo is now in jail for terminating the Moreland Commission?

[billsfan89]

2 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

What!? 

 

It’s almost as if laws are done in context and situational. Your boss has the authority to fire you, but the context to which they do so determines wrongful termination. 

Just now, GG said:

Is that why Cuomo is now in jail for terminating the Moreland Commission?

 

Fine throw him in jail. I am not a partisan hack.

[Deranged Rhino]

6 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

OK so you don't see any issue with firing someone investigating you? Having the authority to do so doesn't make it legal or ethical. This is working backwards from your conclusion and then looking to an echo chamber to justify rather dense and bad framing

 

Was Mueller fired? 

 

Nope. 

 

Was he interfered with or denied the ability to do his job? 

 

Nope. Mueller testified to this.

 

You're literally pushing a falsehood as fact because you're living in fantasy land rather than reality. 

Just now, billsfan89 said:

Fine throw him in jail. I am not a partisan hack.

 

And yet you're blindly parroting a partisan talking point without any sense of irony.

 

Have you stopped to ask yourself why that is?

[row_33]

like a partisan hack has never denied being one.

 

?‍?

------------------------------------

 

so the media is hopefully able to guide the populace on the actions by the President

 

unfortunately all it does is attack the GOP and suck on the Dems the whole time

[Koko78]

13 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

It’s almost as if laws are done in context and situational. Your boss has the authority to fire you, but the context to which they do so determines wrongful termination.

 

It's almost as if at-will employees are subject to termination at the will of the employer.

[DC Tom]

31 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

OK so you don't see any issue with firing someone investigating you? Having the authority to do so doesn't make it legal or ethical.

 

No, the regulation that says he can do it makes it legal.

 

Ethical, no...but that's not the same as "legal."

[billsfan89]

35 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Was Mueller fired? 

 

Nope. 

 

Was he interfered with or denied the ability to do his job? 

 

Nope. Mueller testified to this.

 

You're literally pushing a falsehood as fact because you're living in fantasy land rather than reality. 

 

And yet you're blindly parroting a partisan talking point without any sense of irony.

 

Have you stopped to ask yourself why that is?

 

All my point was that Trump much like Bill Clinton did technically commit a crime on two fronts, one is obstruction in the Russia probe and the other was a campaign finance law violation soliciting political help from Ukraine outside of the Justice Department. But much like the Clinton Impeachment Trump's crimes do not (Based off what we know so far, I would love to see Bolton and others testify before making a definitive conclusion) rise to the levels of being removed from office.

 

But you guys are such a sycophantic echo chamber in the pocket of Trump that any mild criticism of the dear leader and criticism of Republicans comes with an onslaught of purposefully dense thinking, whataboutisms. bad faith interpretations and hack right wing Trump defense talking points. 

 

You go around calling everyone NPC's yet 80% of people here think exactly the same. 

22 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

It's almost as if at-will employees are subject to termination at the will of the employer.

 

Yes because at will employees can be fired based off their race? It's not like there are regulations. 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, billsfan89 said:

 

All my point was that Trump much like Bill Clinton did technically commit a crime on two fronts, one is obstruction in the Russia probe and the other was a campaign finance law violation soliciting political help from Ukraine outside of the Justice Department.

 

Trump did not "technically commit a crime". He was not charged with a crime, there was no "proof" he committed obstruction. You're again pushing a partisan talking point that has no basis in law or reality. None. 

 

1 minute ago, billsfan89 said:

You go around calling everyone NPC's yet 80% of people here think exactly the same. 

 

I call people who refuse to think for themselves NPCs. You are pushing a falsehood as fact -- because proven liars and manipulators in the media whom you obviously rely on for your information have misled you badly. It's been pointed out, with evidence to back it up, how you're misinformed but rather than deal with that information, you double down on talking points. 

 

Because you're programmed. Your mind was made up heading into this.

 

That makes you an NPC until you prove otherwise.

[row_33]

80% think the same?

 

Tibs and gary and the rest of that ilk isn't close to 80%

 

actually they make up 100% of the lies and usual liberal BS on here

 

 

Edited December 11, 2019 by row_33

[billsfan89]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Trump did not "technically commit a crime". He was not charged with a crime, there was no "proof" he committed obstruction. You're again pushing a partisan talking point that has no basis in law or reality. None. 

 

 

I call people who refuse to think for themselves NPCs. You are pushing a falsehood as fact -- because proven liars and manipulators in the media whom you obviously rely on for your information have misled you badly. It's been pointed out, with evidence to back it up, how you're misinformed but rather than deal with that information, you double down on talking points. 

 

Because you're programmed. Your mind was made up heading into this.

 

That makes you an NPC until you prove otherwise.

 

Once again do you ever find it weird that the only people that you feel think for themselves agree with you? I looked at the facts, Trump attempted obstruction of Justice, there can be no denying that unless you are purposefully dense and stating that events that were testified to have happened did not happen. 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Once again do you ever find it weird that the only people that you feel think for themselves agree with you? I looked at the facts, Trump attempted obstruction of Justice, there can be no denying that unless you are purposefully dense and stating that events that were testified to have happened did not happen. 

The evidence you looked at to reach that conclusion were never tested under cross or investigation. 
 

So you’re basing your entire opinion on a supposition made about obstructing a crime we now know for certain never happened. 
 

Isn’t it more effective to examine PROVEN evidence rather than supposition when forming your opinion? 

[row_33]

why bother cross-examining evidence?

 

the media would never lie, nor would Dems in a position of authority

 

[billsfan89]

19 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

The evidence you looked at to reach that conclusion were never tested under cross or investigation. 
 

So you’re basing your entire opinion on a supposition made about obstructing a crime we now know for certain never happened. 
 

Isn’t it more effective to examine PROVEN evidence rather than supposition when forming your opinion? 

 

Is the Muller Report not Proven evidence? You seem happy that it (rightfully) disproved the Russia Gate conspiracy theory but when it goes against what you want to think you become purposefully dense. McGahn himself (firsthand) confirmed the accuracy of the media reports surrounding Trump's request to have McGahn fire Muller and then cover up the fact that he asked McGahn to do so. 

Edited December 11, 2019 by billsfan89

[Foxx]

1 hour ago, billsfan89 said:

 

OK so you don't see any issue with firing someone investigating you? Having the authority to do so doesn't make it legal or ethical. This is working backwards from your conclusion and then looking to an echo chamber to justify rather dense and bad framing

i'll do the honors here...

 

you're an idiot.

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Is the Muller Report not Proven evidence? 

 

Volume 2 has NO PROVEN EVIDENCE. None. Because none of it was tested under cross or allowed to be investigated. That's what I'm pointing out. That's the "facts" you're relying on to form your opinion, and it's entirely based on SUPPOSITION. 

 

You've been BADLY misled for three years about this very matter. And rather than realize that, and step back and reassess, you're doubling down on buying into the narrative pushed on you by proven liars. 

Why?

[Koko78]

5 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Is the Muller Report not Proven evidence? You seem happy that it (rightfully) disproved the Russia Gate conspiracy theory but when it goes against what you want to think you become purposefully dense. McGahn himself (firsthand) confirmed the accuracy of the media reports surrounding Trump's request to have McGahn fire Muller and then cover up the fact that he asked McGahn to do so. 

 

Please identify the exact statute which qualifies as "obstruction" by doing something that he is legally entitled to do.

 

By the way, does it not strike you as odd that this "proven" obstruction somehow didn't make it into the Articles of Impeachment. You know, since it's "proven" obstruction and all...

[billsfan89]

5 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Please identify the exact statute which qualifies as "obstruction" by doing something that he is legally entitled to do.

 

By the way, does it not strike you as odd that this "proven" obstruction somehow didn't make it into the Articles of Impeachment. You know, since it's "proven" obstruction and all...

 

Once again you are being purposefully dense to state that context to which allowable actions are conducted are irrelevant. Once again, laws are done under context of actions. You are allowed to fire someone, can you fire them for being Asian? There are laws and regulations to which you can use your authority. 

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Once again you are being purposefully dense to state that context to which allowable actions are conducted are irrelevant. Once again, laws are done under context of actions. You are allowed to fire someone, can you fire them for being Asian? There are laws and regulations to which you can use your authority. 

 

I really have nothing against you, billsfan89. Truly. I just do not understand why you keep twisting things to fit the narrative of people who lied to your face for three years without compunction. Why keep drinking their swill? Aren't you offended that the majority of the corporate media spent three years sowing division in this country by pushing a false narrative that we now know THEY knew to be fake since January of 2017? 

 

Doesn't any of that give you pause to at least consider the possibility that you were misled? 

[3rdnlng]

19 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Once again you are being purposefully dense to state that context to which allowable actions are conducted are irrelevant. Once again, laws are done under context of actions. You are allowed to fire someone, can you fire them for being Asian? There are laws and regulations to which you can use your authority. 

If their job is driving a vehicle on public streets then it is the only responsible thing to do to can their asses. 

Edited December 11, 2019 by 3rdnlng

[SoCal Deek]

4 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Once again you are being purposefully dense to state that context to which allowable actions are conducted are irrelevant. Once again, laws are done under context of actions. You are allowed to fire someone, can you fire them for being Asian? There are laws and regulations to which you can use your authority. 

Many of you need a civics class. There are three branches of government.  The President does NOT work for the Congress. If there is a dispute between two of the branches, the third one breaks the tie. In this particular case, the congress doesn't want to ask the third branch: the Court. They know they are supposed to ask the Court, but Nancy has refused.  If anyone is abusing their power, it's the Congress.